Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Browse subjects
  3. Economics
  4. Macroeconomics
  5. Content listing

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

11577 results in Macroeconomics

Page 237 of 579

  • MDY volume 19 issue 4 Cover and Back matter

  • Journal:
    Macroeconomic Dynamics / Volume 19 / Issue 4 / June 2015
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    20 May 2015, pp. b1-b2
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • A NOTE ON REMITTANCES, MONETARY REGIMES, AND NONTRADABLE INFLATION DYNAMICS

  • Emmanuel K.K. Lartey
  • Journal:
    Macroeconomic Dynamics / Volume 20 / Issue 6 / September 2016
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    05 May 2015, pp. 1668-1682

  • This paper examines the dynamic and desirable properties of monetary regimes in a remittances recipient economy, with emphasis on the effect on sectoral output and nontradable inflation dynamics. The findings indicate that under a fixed exchange rate regime, an increase in remittances creates increased demand for nontradable goods, and hence a rise in nontradable inflation, as well as expansion in output of nontradables. Under a nontradable inflation targeting regime, however, a decrease in nontradable inflation and an expansion in tradable goods production are observed following an increase in remittances. A near-zero nontradable inflation rate and managed variability in the nominal exchange rate typify the optimal monetary policy, suggesting that an inflation targeting regime is preferable to a fixed exchange regime under such a scenario. A VAR analysis shows that the dynamics of inflation in El Salvador and the Philippines is in consonance with those observed in the model under the fixed exchange rate and nontradable inflation targeting regimes, respectively.

  • ANATOMIZING INCOMPLETE-MARKETS SMALL OPEN ECONOMIES: POLICY TRADE-OFFS AND EQUILIBRIUM DETERMINACY

  • Jaime Alonso-Carrera, Timothy Kam
  • Journal:
    Macroeconomic Dynamics / Volume 20 / Issue 4 / June 2016
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    05 May 2015, pp. 1022-1050

  • We propose a simple incomplete-markets small-open-economy model that is amenable to analytical dissection of its policy-relevant mechanisms. In contrast to its complete-markets limit, the equilibrium real exchange rate is irreducible from the incomplete-markets equilibrium. Market incompleteness exacerbates the domestic-inflation and output-gap monetary-policy trade-off in two ways: its steepness and its resulting endogenous cost-push to the trade-off. The latter depends on an equilibrium combination of structural shocks and on agents' beliefs of future events. Thus, in comparison to its complete-markets and closed-economy limits, standard Taylor-type rules are less capable of inducing determinate rational expectations equilibrium in our environment. Despite the larger policy trade-off under incomplete markets, simple policies that also respond to exchange-rate growth are able to manage expectations that drive the endogenous cost-push term. However, policies that respond directly to expectations may turn out to exacerbate the cost-push trade-off further, and thus, to be more likely to fuel self-fulfilling multiple or unstable equilibria.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2013
  • Volume 1, Pages 1–468
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 April 2015
  • The Dispute Settlement Reports of the World Trade Organization (WTO) include Panel and Appellate Body reports, as well as arbitration awards, in disputes concerning the rights and obligations of WTO members under the provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. These are the WTO authorized and paginated reports in English. An essential addition to the library of all practising and academic trade lawyers and needed by students worldwide taking courses in international economic or trade law. DSR 2013: Volumes 1 and 2 together report on Canada - Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector / Canada - Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program (WT/DS412, WT/DS426).

  • China - Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-Rolled Electrical Steel from the United States (WT/DS414/2): Award of the Arbitrator

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2013
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 April 2015, pp 1495-1500

  • Summary

    Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes

    WT/DS414/2

    Circulated to Members on 3 May 2013

    Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States

    The following communication, dated 11 February 2011, from the delegation of the United States to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.

    On September 15, 2010, the United States Government requested consultations with China pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”), Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“AD Agreement”), and Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”). The United States and China held such consultations on November 1, 2010. Unfortunately these consultations did not resolve the dispute.

    The United States considers that certain measures of the Government of the People's Republic of China (“China”) are inconsistent with China's commitments and obligations under the GATT 1994, the AD Agreement, and the SCM Agreement. The measures impose countervailing duties and antidumping duties on grain oriented flat-rolled electrical steel (“GOES”) from the United States, and are set forth in Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) Notice No. 21 [2010], including its annexes.

    These measures appear to be inconsistent with the following provisions of the AD Agreement, SCM Agreement, and GATT 1994:

    Initiation of the Investigation

    1. Articles 11.2 and 11.3 of the SCM Agreement, because:

  • (a) The application for a countervailing duty investigation failed to contain information reasonably available to the applicant regarding the existence of a financial contribution, a benefit, or specificity for several of the alleged subsidy programs; and

  • China - Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States (WT/DS427): Report of the Panel

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2013
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 April 2015, pp 1041-1494

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 20 September 2011, the United States requested consultations with China pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”) (to the extent that Article 30 incorporates Article XXIII of the GATT 1994), and Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti- Dumping Agreement”) with respect to China's measures imposing anti-dumping duties and countervailing duties on broiler products from the United States, as set forth in Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) Notice No. 8 [2010], Notice No. 26 [2010], Notice No. 51 [2010], and Notice No. 52 [2010], including any and all annexes. Pursuant to this request, the United States and China held consultations on 28 October 2011. The consultations failed to resolve the dispute.

    On 8 December 2011, the United States requested, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Article 30 of the SCM Agreement, that the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) establish a panel to examine this matter.

    At its meeting on 20 January 2012, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request of the United States in document WT/DS427/2, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU.

    The Panel's terms of reference are the following:

    To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the parties to the dispute, the matter referred to the DSB by the United States in document WT/DS427/2 and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.

  • Canada - Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector / Canada - Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program (WT/DS412, WT/DS426): Reports of the Panel

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2013
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 April 2015, pp 237-442

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Complaints of Japan and the European Union

    On 13 September 2010, Japan requested consultations with Canada pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), Article 8 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (the “TRIMs Agreement”), and Articles 4.1 and 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”). On 11 August 2011, the European Union requested consultations with Canada pursuant to the same, above-mentioned provisions. In both complaints, the consultations concerned certain measures relating to domestic content requirements in the feed-in tariff programme (the “FIT Programme”), established by the Canadian Province of Ontario. These measures included the following: (i) the Electricity Act of 1998; (ii) the Green Energy and Green Economy Act of 2009; (iii) the Electricity Restructuring Act of 2004; (iv) the Ontario Regulation 578/05; (v) the Independent Electricity System Operator (the “IESO”) Market Manual; (vi) the IESO Market Rules; (vii) the FIT direction dated 24 September 2009 from the Deputy Premier and Minister of Energy and Infrastructure; (viii) individual FIT and microFIT Contracts executed by the Ontario Power Authority (the “OPA”); (ix) the FIT Rules and microFIT Rules issued by the OPA; (x) the FIT and microFIT Contracts issued by the OPA; (xi) the FIT Application Form and the online microFIT Application issued by the OPA; (xii) the FIT and microFIT Price Schedules issued by the OPA; (xiii) the FIT Programme Interpretations of the Domestic Content Requirements; and (xiv) any amendments or extensions of the foregoing, any replacement, renewal, implementing or related measures.

    Consultations were held between Japan and Canada on 25 October 2010, and between the European Union and Canada on 7 September 2011. These consultations failed to resolve the disputes.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2013
  • Volume 4, Pages 1039–1526
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 April 2015
  • The Dispute Settlement Reports of the World Trade Organization (WTO) include Panel and Appellate Body reports, as well as arbitration awards, in disputes concerning the rights and obligations of WTO members under the provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. These are the WTO authorized and paginated reports in English. An essential addition to the library of all practising and academic trade lawyers and needed by students worldwide taking courses in international economic or trade law. DSR 2013: Volume 4 reports on China - Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States (WT/DS427) and China - Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-Rolled Electrical Steel from the United States (WT/DS414/2).

Dispute Settlement Reports 2013
  • Volume 2, Pages 469–656
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 April 2015
  • The Dispute Settlement Reports of the World Trade Organization (WTO) include Panel and Appellate Body reports, as well as arbitration awards, in disputes concerning the rights and obligations of WTO members under the provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. These are the WTO authorized and paginated reports in English. An essential addition to the library of all practising and academic trade lawyers and needed by students worldwide taking courses in international economic or trade law. DSR 2013: Volumes 1 and 2 together report on Canada - Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector / Canada - Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program (WT/DS412, WT/DS426).

  • Canada - Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector / Canada - Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program (WT/DS412, WT/DS426): Reports of the Panel - Annexes

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2013
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 April 2015, pp 471-655

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    This dispute concerns the discriminatory treatment affecting imports of parts and equipment utilized in facilities that generate electricity from wind and solar photovoltaic (“PV”) sources (referred to hereafter as “renewable energy generation equipment”) by the Canadian Province of Ontario (“Ontario“) pursuant to its feed-in tariff (“FIT”) program (the “FIT Program”)3 established on 24 September 2009. Specifically, the FIT Program provides subsidies to generators of renewable energy in Ontario, and it requires that in order to receive those subsidies, wind and solar PV generators use renewable energy generation equipment made in Ontario (the “domestic content requirement”).

    Thus, the Government of Ontario grants and maintains subsidies contingent upon the use of domestic over imported renewable energy generation equipment and accords less favorable treatment to imports of such equipment than that accorded to such equipment produced domestically. Accordingly, Japan submits that the FIT Program, as well as individually executed FIT and microFIT contracts for wind and solar PV projects, are inconsistent with Canada's obligations under: (i) Articles 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”); (ii) Article III:4 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”); and (iii) Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (“TRIMs Agreement”).

    To be clear, Japan challenges the FIT Program, and individually executed FIT and microFIT contracts, not because they have the effect of promoting investment in renewable energy generation, but rather because, in light of the domestic content requirement, they discriminate against imports of renewable energy generation equipment in favor of Ontario-made renewable energy generation equipment. Japan does not take issue with Ontario's stated goal of enhancing renewable energy generation. On the contrary, the domestic content requirement, which would have the effect of limiting generators’ access to the best available technology from the global marketplace, is inconsistent with that goal. Thus, the claims advanced by Japan cannot properly be characterized as a “trade and environment” dispute; rather, this is a “trade and investment” dispute.

  • Canada - Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector / Canada - Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program (WT/DS412, WT/DS426): Reports of the Appellate Body

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2013
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 April 2015, pp 7-236

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Canada, Japan, and the European Union each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Reports, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector and Canada – Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program (Panel Reports). The Panel was established to consider complaints by Japan and the European Union8 (the complainants) with respect to certain domestic content requirements in the feedin tariff programme (FIT Programme) established by the Canadian Province of Ontario.

    The measures at issue in these disputes, as identified by the Panel, are the following:

    a. the FIT Programme, as evidenced by the following measures:

  • i. the Electricity Act of 1998, as amended, including in particular Part II – Independent Electricity System Operator, Part II.1 – Ontario Power Authority, and Part II.2 – Management of Electricity Supply, Capacity and Demand, including in particular Section 25.35 – Feed-in tariff program;

  • ii. an Act to enact the Green Energy Act of 2009 and to build a green economy, to repeal the Energy Conservation Leadership Act of 2006 and the Energy Efficiency Act and to amend other statutes (Green Energy and Green Economy Act of 2009), including in particular Schedule B, amending the Electricity Act of 1998;

  • iii. an Act to amend the Electricity Act of 1998 and the Ontario Energy Board Act of 1998 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Electricity Restructuring Act of 2004), including in particular Schedule A, Sections 29- 32, enacting Part II.1 of the Electricity Act of 1998, and Sections 33-38, enacting Part II.2 of the Electricity Act of 1998, and Schedule B, Sections 17-18, enacting Sections 78.3-78.4 of the Ontario Energy Board Act of 1998;

  • iv. Ontario Regulation 578/05, made under the Ontario Energy Board Act of 1998, entitled “Prescribed Contracts Re Sections 78.3 and 78.4 of the Act”;

  • v. the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) Market Manual, including in particular Part 5.5 – Physical Markets Settlement Statements;

  • China - Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on X-Ray Security Inspection Equipment from the European Union (WT/DS425): Report of the Panel

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2013
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 April 2015, pp 659-1012

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 25 July 2011 the European Union requested consultations with the Government of the People's Republic of China (“China”) pursuant to Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”), Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (“Anti-Dumping Agreement”) and Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlem0ent of Disputes (“DSU”) with respect to the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on x-ray security inspection equipment from the EU, pursuant to Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”), Notice No. 1 (2011), including its annex. The consultations were held on 19 September and 18 October 2011. The consultations failed to resolve the dispute.

    On 8 December 2011, the European Union requested, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU and Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement that the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) establish a Panel to examine this matter.

    At its meeting on 20 January 2012, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request of the European Union in document WT/DS425/2, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU.

    The Panel's terms of reference are the following:

    To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the parties to the dispute, the matter referred to the DSB by the European Union in document WT/DS425/2 and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.

    On 2 March 2012, the European Union requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the panel, pursuant to Article 8.7 of the DSU. This paragraph provides:

    If there is no agreement on the panelists within 20 days after the date of the establishment of a panel, at the request of either party, the Director-General, in consultation with the Chairman of the DSB and the Chairman of the relevant Council or Committee, shall determine the composition of the panel by appointing the panelists whom the Director-General considers most appropriate in accordance with any relevant special or additional rules or procedures of the covered agreement or covered agreements which are at issue in the dispute, after consulting with the parties to the dispute.

Page 237 of 579