# Exchange Rate Volatility, Currency Misalignment, and Risk of Recession in the Central and Eastern European Countries

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Literature Survey

#### 2.1. Exchange Rate Volatility and Economic Growth

#### 2.2. Currency Misalignments in Open Economies

#### 2.3. Sources of Exchange Rate Volatility

## 3. Data and Methods

#### 3.1. Data

_{t}(%), as well of the currency misalignment, rerc

_{t}(%), were calculated as a percentage deviation of the current values from the Hodrick-Prescott filtered trend. The use of a nominal effective exchange rate, e

_{t}, is preferred in studies of the exchange rate variability because the RER variability incorporates price fluctuations, which represent another type of uncertainty for private agents (Barguellil et al. 2018). Other studies implement alternative measures of the currency misalignment. For example, Rodrik (2008) and Ribero et al. (2020) define RER misalignment as a difference between exchange rate adjusted for PPP conversion factors, $\mathrm{ln}(RE{R}_{t})=\mathrm{ln}({E}_{t}/(PP{P}_{t})$, and the RER obtained from a regression on the log the GDP per capita: $\mathrm{ln}({\tilde{RER}}_{t})={\gamma}_{0}+{\gamma}_{1}\mathrm{ln}({Y}_{t})+{\epsilon}_{t}$.

_{t}), we consider nine sub-indices, namely business freedom (1), trade freedom (2), investment freedom (3), financial freedom (4), property rights (5), fiscal health (6), judicial effectiveness (7), labor freedom (8), and monetary freedom (9), ranging from 0 to 10 points. The importance of institutions used to be considered in the context of long-term growth, but it seems to be of the same role in managing short-term output fluctuations. As mentioned by Boar (2010), the key to the macroeconomic success of an emerging economy is not the initial choice of the exchange rate regime but rather the health of the fundamental institutions.

#### 3.2. The Model of Exchange Rate Volatility

_{t}, is a function of the mean (ω), the ARCH term (α), the EGARCH term ($\beta $), and three explanatory variables. A high value of $\alpha $ means significant impact of stochastic shocks, with a high value of $\beta $ reflecting persistence in exchange rate volatility. The sum of both coefficients (α and β) indicates the speed of convergence of the forecast of the conditional volatility to a steady state (Kočenda and Valachy 2006). Asymmetry in the standardized shocks to $\mathrm{ln}\left({\sigma}_{t}^{2}\right)$ exists if $\gamma \ne 0$, why leverage exists if $\gamma <0$ and $\gamma <\alpha <-\gamma $ (McAleer and Hafner 2014). Similar to Schnabl (2009), we used the consumer price index (CPI) as a proxy for macroeconomic stability. A country-specific dummy CRISIS

_{t}is supposed to control for asymmetric shocks.

_{t}) and its sub-indices. As data on the Index of Economic Freedom are provided on the annual basis, we used procedure of the Holt-Winters exponential smoothing in order to obtain time series in the quarterly window.

#### 3.3. The Model of Business Cycle

_{t}(% of GDP), and two measures of monetary policy, i.e., excess money supply, moneyc

_{t}(%), and the central bank reference rate, rcb

_{t}(%), to the list of explanatory variables. Excess money supply is calculated as a difference between money aggregate M3 and its trend obtained with the Hodrick-Prescott filter. While the use of the central bank reference rate reflects a standard monetary policy tool under a floating exchange rate regime, the excess money supply can control for attempts by the central bank to sterilize capital flows.

## 4. Results and Discussion

#### 4.1. Determinants of Exchange Rate Volatility

_{t}, we use EGARCH(1,1) models with the asymmetric Student’s t-distribution. Estimates of the baseline model are presented in Table 3. Among determinants of the mean exchange rate, the interest rate differential is associated with depreciation for three out of four countries, being in line with the logic of Equation (3). However, the relationship for Romania is just the opposite. As for the lagged terms-of-trade, there is no evidence of a direct link between higher domestic prices and depreciation. For the Czech Republic, Poland, and Romania, there is an inverse relationship between both variables. Contrary to predictions of Corsetti et al. (2017), deflation abroad does not lead to depreciation of the exchange rate.

#### 4.2. Determinants of the Business Cycle

_{t}is insignificant. It is likely that our findings reflect an excessive level of economic liberalization attained during the period of negotiations with the European Union on the terms of EU accession. While the level of economic freedom is negatively correlated with cyclical fluctuations in output, changes in the level of economic freedom are neutral in respect to yc

_{t}.

_{t−}

_{1}depends on the choice of the exchange rate variability.

_{t}is much smaller and statistically significant at the 10% level only in specification with $eva{r}_{t}^{2}$. No evidence of any EU accession effects is found for Romania.

_{t}are confirmed but the same favorable effect of the RER undervaluation emerges in the specification with the money supply. Similar stimulating effect of the RER undervaluation is found for Hungary, although only in specification with $eva{r}_{t}^{1}$. It is confirmed that exchange rate volatility contributes to a recession in Hungary.

_{t}and yc

_{t}emerges in specifications with both moneyc

_{t}and rcb

_{t}. Additionally, Romania emerges as the only CEE country with a statistically significant positive effect of an increase in economic freedom (in first differences) on output. For Poland, a negative relationship between herit

_{t}and yc

_{t}disappears in specification with moneyc

_{t}, while being strengthened in the specification with rcb

_{t}.

_{t}, helps to stabilize output in the Czech Republic and Poland. Assuming a link between the money supply and exchange rate volatility (Devereux and Engel 2002), it only strengthens the assumption of shock-absorbing properties of the floating exchange rate regimes for the Czech koruna and Polish zloty.

_{t}and yc

_{t}is observed in Poland. It is possible to hypothesize that such an outcome results from efforts by the central bank to avoid appreciation of the exchange rate. As a higher central bank rate can tap capital inflows, sterilization policies substitute a stronger currency with a higher excessive money supply that ultimately becomes responsible for an increase in output. For Romania, it is likely that the lack of sensitivity to the central bank policy rate is explained by the balance sheet effect, as argued by Georgiadis and Zhu (2019).

_{t−}

_{1}and yc

_{t}is confirmed for Hungary and it becomes more stable for the Czech Republic. As for Poland and Romania, a negative impact of the trade balance is observed in specifications with moneyc

_{t}, but the effect is lost in specifications with rcb

_{t}. A strong procyclical effect of entering the EU is confirmed for the Czech Republic and Hungary. For Poland, a stimulating effect of similar amplitude emerges in the specification with rcb

_{t}, although it is not observed in the specification with moneyc

_{t}.

## 5. Robustness Check

_{t}, the architecture of main relationships between exchange rate developments and cyclical changes in output is confirmed. First, exchange rate volatility is a stabilizing factor in the Czech Republic, with an opposite effect in Hungary. For Romania, exchange rate volatility is neutral in respect to the business cycle. As for Poland, a possibility of stimulating effect is offered by specification with $eva{r}_{t}^{1}$ and rcb

_{t}, but it is not confirmed by the estimates of other specifications.

_{t}. The case is similar with the Hungarian forint, but in this case a positive coefficient on rerpppc

_{t}becomes insignificant in the specification with $eva{r}_{t}^{2}$.

_{t}(Table 7). For Hungary, a negative link between herit

_{t}and yc

_{t}becomes statistically significant in the specification with moneyc

_{t}. Estimates for Poland do not reveal any differences in respect to output effects of economic freedom.

_{t}instead of rerc

_{t}significantly improves assessment of output effects by the EU accession for Poland. An opposite outcome is found for Hungary in specification with rcb

_{t}. If measure currency misalignment by rerpppc

_{t}, a negative link between trade

_{t−}

_{1}and yc

_{t}becomes somewhat stronger in specifications with moneyc

_{t}.

## 6. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Aghion, Philippe, Philippe Bacchetta, Romain Ranciere, and Kenneth Rogoff. 2009. Exchange Rate Volatility and Productivity Growth: The Role of Financial Development. Journal of Monetary Economics 56: 494–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahmed, Shaghil, Christofer Gust, Steven B. Kamin, and Jonathan Huntley. 2002. Are Depreciations as Contractionary as Devaluations? A Comparison of Selected Emerging and Industrial Economies. FRB International Finance Discussion Paper No. 737. Washington, DC: Federal Reserve System. [Google Scholar]
- Aizenman, Joshua, Yothin Jinjarak, Gemma Estrada, and Shu Tian. 2018. Flexibility of adjustment to shocks: Economic growth and volatility of middle-income countries before and after the global financial crisis of 2008. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 54: 1112–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antonakakis, Nikolaos, and Julia Darby. 2012. Forecasting Volatility in Developing Countries’ Nominal Exchange Returns. MPRA Paper No. 40875. Munich: University Library of Munich. [Google Scholar]
- Arratibel, Olga, Davide Furceri, Reiner Martin, and Aleksandra Zdzienicka-Durand. 2011. The Effect of Nominal Exchange Rate Volatility on Real Macroeconomic Performance in the CEE Countries. Economic Systems 35: 261–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Azid, Toseef, Muhammad Jamil, and Aneela Kousar. 2005. Impact of Exchange Rate Volatility on Growth and Economic Performance: A Case Study of Pakistan, 1973–2003. Pakistan Development Review 44: 749–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bacchetta, Philippe, and Eric van Wincoop. 2013. On the unstable relationship between exchange rates and macroeconomic fundamentals. Journal of International Economics 91: 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barguellil, Achouak, Ousama Ben-Salha, and Mourad Zmami. 2018. Exchange Rate Volatility and Economic Growth. Journal of Economic Integration 33: 1302–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Belke, Ansgar, and Ralph Setzer. 2003. Exchange Rate Volatility and Employment Growth: Empirical Evidence from the CEE Economies. CESifo Working Paper No. 1056. Munich: Center for Economic Studies and Ifo Institute (CESifo). [Google Scholar]
- Benhima, Kenza. 2012. Exchange Rate Volatility and Productivity Growth: The Role of Original Sin. Open Economies Review 23: 501–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Béreau, Sophie, Antonia Lopez-Villavicencio, and Valerie Mignon. 2012. Currency Misalignments and Growth: A New Look using Nonlinear Panel Data Methods. Applied Economics 44: 3503–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bjørnskov, Christian. 2016. Economic freedom and economic crises. European Journal of Political Economy 45: 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bleaney, Michael, and Manuela Francisco. 2010. What Makes Currencies Volatile? An Empirical Investigation. Open Economies Review 21: 731–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bleaney, Michael, and David Greenaway. 2001. The impact of terms of trade and real exchange rate volatility on investment and growth in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Development Economics 65: 491–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boar, Corina Georgeta. 2010. Exchange rate volatility and growth in emerging Europe. The Review of Finance and Banking 2: 103–20. [Google Scholar]
- Borys, Magdalena, Éva Polgár, and Andrei Zlate. 2008. Real Convergence and the Determinants of Growth in EU Candidate and Potential Candidate Countries—A Panel Data Approach. ECB Occasional Paper No. 86. Frankfurt: European Central Bank. [Google Scholar]
- Caballero, Ricardo J., and Guido Lorenzoni. 2014. Persistent Appreciations and Overshooting: A Normative Analysis. IMF Economic Review 62: 1–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Calderon, César, and Megumi Kubota. 2018. Does Higher Openness Cause More Real Exchange Rate Volatility? Journal of International Economics 110: 176–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Caporale, Guglielmo, Thouraya Amor, and Christophe Rault. 2011. Sources of Real Exchange Rate Volatility and International Financial Integration: A Dynamic GMM Panel Approach. CESifo Working Paper No. 3645. Munich: Center for Economic Studies and Ifo Institute (CESifo). [Google Scholar]
- Corsetti, Giancarlo. 2006. Openness and the case for flexible exchange rates. Research in Economics 60: 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Corsetti, Giancarlo, Keith Kuester, and Gernot J. Müller. 2017. Fixed on Flexible Rethinking Exchange Rate Regimes after the Great Recession. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics No. 1729. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, Available online: http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/research-files/repec/cam/pdf/cwpe1729.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2021).
- Cuestas, Juan Carlos, Mercedes Monfort, and Javier Ordóñez. 2019. Real Exchange Rates and Competitiveness in Central and Eastern Europe: Have They Fundamentally Changed? Working Papers 2019/12. Castellón: Universitat Jaume I. [Google Scholar]
- De Haan, Jacob, and Jan-Egbert Sturm. 2000. On the Relationship Between Economic Freedom and Economic Growth. European Journal of Political Economy 16: 215–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Haan, Jacob, Susanna Lundström, and Jan-Egbert Sturm. 2006. Market oriented institutions and policies and economic growth: A critical survey. Journal of Economic Surveys 20: 157–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Demir, Firat. 2013. Growth under exchange rate volatility: Does access to foreign or domestic equity markets matter? Journal of Development Economics 100: 74–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Devereux, Michael B., and Charles Engel. 2002. Exchange rate pass-through, exchange rate volatility, and exchange rate disconnect. Journal of Monetary Economics 49: 913–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Devereux, Michael B., and Philip R. Lane. 2003. Understanding bilateral exchange rate volatility. Journal of International Economics 60: 109–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dollar, David. 1992. Outward-oriented developing economies really do grow more rapidly: Evidence from 95 LDCs, 1976–1985. Economic Development and Cultural Change 40: 523–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dornbusch, Rudiger. 2001. Fewer Monies, Better Monies. NBER Working Papers No. 8324. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. [Google Scholar]
- Dornbusch, Rudiger, and Alberto Giovannini. 1990. Monetary Policy in the Open Economy. In Handbook of Monetary Economics. Edited by Benjamin M. Friedman and Frank H. Hahn. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publisher, vol. 2, pp. 1231–303. [Google Scholar]
- Doucouliagos, Chris, and Mehmet Ali Ulubasoglu. 2006. Economic freedom and economic growth: Does specification make a difference? European Journal of Political Economy 22: 60–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durlauf, Steven N. 2018. Institutions, Development and Growth: Where Does Evidence Stand? EDI Working Paper Series, 18/04.1; Oxford: Economic Development & Institution. [Google Scholar]
- Edwards, Sebastian. 2011. Exchange-Rate Policies in Emerging Countries: Eleven Empirical Regularities from Latin America and East Asia. Open Economies Review 22: 533–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwards, Sebastian, and Eduardo Levy-Yeyati. 2005. Flexible exchange rates as shock absorbers. European Economic Review 49: 2079–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eichler, Stefan, and Helge C. Littke. 2017. Central Bank Transparency and the Volatility of Exchange Rates. IWH Discussion Papers, 22/2017. Halle: Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung Halle (IWH), Available online: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:gbv:3:2-80759 (accessed on 5 February 2021).
- Emara, Noha, and Loreto Reyes. 2020. Economic Freedom and Economic Performance: Does Good Governance Matter? The Case of APAC and OECD Countries. MPRA Paper, No. 103590. Munich: University Library of Munich. [Google Scholar]
- Engel, Charles. 2011. Currency misalignments and optimal monetary policy: A reexamination. American Economic Review 101: 2796–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Firdmuc, Jarko, and Roman Horváth. 2007. Volatility of Exchange Rates in Selected New EU Members: Evidence from Daily Data. CESifo Working Paper, No. 2107. Munich: Center for Economic Studies and ifo Institute (CESifo). [Google Scholar]
- Fratzscher, Marcel, Dagfinn Rime, Lucio Sarno, and Gabriele Zinna. 2015. The scapegoat theory of exchange rates: The first tests. Journal of Monetary Economics 70: 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Frenkel, Jacob A., and Morris Goldstein. 1991. Exchange Rate Volatility and Misalignment: Evaluating Some Proposals for Reform. In Evolution of the International and Regional Monetary Systems. Edited by Alfred Steinherr and Daniel Weiserbs. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 185–220. [Google Scholar]
- Frenkel, Michael, Christian Pierdzioch, and Georg Stadtmann. 2005. The effects of Japanese foreign exchange market interventions on the yen/U.S. dollar exchange rate volatility. International Review of Economics & Finance 14: 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Furceri, Davide, and Aleksandra Zdzienicka. 2012. How costly are debt crises? Journal of International Money and Finance 31: 726–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Georgiadis, Georgios, and Feng Zhu. 2019. Monetary Policy Spillovers, Capital Controls and Exchange Rate Flexibility, and the Financial Channel of Exchange Rates. ECB Working Paper Series; Frankfurt: European Central Bank. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghosh, Atish, Anne-Marie Gulde, and Holger Wolf. 2003. Exchange Rate Regimes: Choices and Consequences. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
- Giannellis, Nikolaos, and Athanasios Papadopoulos. 2011. What causes exchange rate volatility? Evidence from selected EMU members and candidates for EMU membership countries. Journal of International Money and Finance 30: 39–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haddad, Mona, and Cosimo Pancaro. 2010. Can Real Exchange Rate Undervaluation Boost Exports and Growth in Developing Countries? Yes, But Not for Long. In Economic Premise. Washington, DC: World Bank, Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/10178 (accessed on 5 February 2021).
- Han, Yujing. 2020. The impact of exchange rate fluctuation on economic growth—Empirical studies based on different countries. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research 146: 29–33. [Google Scholar]
- Hau, Harald. 2002. Real exchange rate volatility and economic openness: Theory and evidence. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 34: 611–30. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3270734 (accessed on 5 February 2021).
- Hausmann, Ricardo, Lan Pritchett, and Dani Rodrik. 2005. Growth Accelerations. Journal of Economic Growth 10: 303–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holland, Márcio, Flávio Vieira, Cleomar Gomes da Silva, and Luiz Carlos Bottecchia. 2013. Growth and exchange rate volatility: A panel data analysis. Applied Economics 45: 3733–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jamil, Muhammad, Erich W. Streissler, and Robert M. Kunst. 2012. Exchange rate volatility and its impact on industrial production, before and after the introduction of common currency in Europe. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues 2: 85–109. [Google Scholar]
- Janus, Thorste, and Daniel Riera-Crichton. 2015. Real exchange rate volatility, economic growth and the euro. Journal of Economic Integration 30: 148–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Juhro, Solikin M., and Dinh Hoang Bach Phan. 2018. Can economic policy uncertainty predict exchange rate and its volatility? Evidence from ASEAN countries. Bulletin of Monetary Economics and Banking 21: 251–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Justesen, Mogens K. 2008. The effect of economic freedom on growth revisited: New evidence on causality from a panel of countries 1970–1999. European Journal of Political Economy 24: 642–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karadam, Duygu Yolcu, and Erdal Ozmen. 2016. Real Exchange Rates and Growth. ERC Working Papers, No. 1609. Ankara: Middle East Technical University. [Google Scholar]
- Kočenda, Evzen, and Juraj Valachy. 2006. Exchange Rate Volatility and Regime Change: Visegrad Comparison. IPC Working Paper Series, No. 7; Ann Abror: University of Michigan. [Google Scholar]
- Krugman, Paul. 1988. Deindustrialization, Reindustrialization, and the Real Exchange Rate. NBER Working Papers, No. 2586. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. [Google Scholar]
- Lyócsa, Štefan, Peter Molnár, and Igor Fedorko. 2016. Forecasting Exchange Rate Volatility: The Case of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Czech Journal of Economics and Finance 66: 453–75. [Google Scholar]
- MacDonald, Ronald, and Flávio Vieira. 2010. A Panel Data Investigation of Real Exchange Rate Misalignment and Growth. CESifo Working Paper, No. 3061. Munich: Center for Economic Studies and ifo Institute (CESifo). [Google Scholar]
- McAleer, Michael, and Christian M. Hafner. 2014. A one line derivation of EGARCH. Econometrics 2: 92–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McKinnon, Ronald. 1963. Optimum Currency Areas. The American Economic Review 53: 717–25. [Google Scholar]
- Miletić, Siniša. 2015. Modeling exchange rate volatility in CEEC countries: Impact of global financial and European sovereign debt crisis. Megatrend Review 12: 105–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Morina, Fatbardha, Eglantina Hysa, Uğur Ergün, Mirela Panait, and Marian Voica. 2020. The effect of exchange rate volatility on economic growth: Case of the CEE countries. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 13: 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morvillier, Florian. 2020. Do currency undervaluations affect the impact of inflation on growth? Economic Modelling 84: 275–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mussa, Michael. 1986. Nominal exchange rate regimes and the behaviour of real exchange rates: Evidence and implications. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 25: 117–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newey, Whithney K., and Kenneth D. West. 1994. Automatic Lag Selection in Covariance Matrix Estimation. The Review of Economic Studies 61: 631–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obstfeld, Maurice, and Kenneth Rogoff. 1995. Exchange Rate Dynamics Redux. The Journal of Political Economy 103: 624–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Papadamou, Stephanos, Moïse Sidiropoulos, and Eleftherios Spyromitros. 2016. Central bank transparency and exchange rate volatility effects on inflation-output volatility. Economics and Business Letters 5: 25–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Petracchi, Cosimo. 2021. The Mussa Puzzle: A Generalization. BU Working Papers, 2021-001. Providence: Brown University. [Google Scholar]
- Pham, Thi Hong Hanh. 2018. Liquidity and Exchange Rate Volatility. LEMNA Working Paper, EA 4272. Nantes: University of Nantes. [Google Scholar]
- Ribero, Rafael S. M., John S. L. McCombie, and Gilbeto Tadeu Lima. 2020. Does real exchange undervaluation really promote economic growth? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 52: 408–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodrik, Dani. 2008. The real exchange rate and economic growth. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 39: 365–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schnabl, Gunther. 2009. Exchange rate volatility and growth in emerging Europe and East Asia. Open Economies Review 20: 565–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Straub, Roland, and Ivan Tchakarov. 2004. Non-Fundamental Exchange Rate Volatility and Welfare. ECB Working Paper Series, 328; Frakfurt: European Central Bank. [Google Scholar]
- Tsangarides, Charalambos G. 2012. Crisis and recovery: Role of the exchange rate regime in emerging market economies. Journal of Macroeconomics 34: 470–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uzelac, Ozren, Milivoje Davidovic, and Marijana Dukic Mijatovic. 2020. Milivoje Davidovic, and Marijana Dukic Mijatovic. 2020. Legal Framework, Political Environment and Economic Freedom in Central and Eastern Europe: Do They Matter for Economic Growth? Post-Communist Economies 32: 697–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, Christoph S. 2017. The Effect of Central Bank Transparency on Exchange Rate Volatility. BGPE Discussion Paper, 174. Nürnberg: Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 1.**Business cycle and currency misalignment, 2000–2019 (in %). Source: own calculations based on data from IMF International Financial Statistics (www.data.imf.org, accessed on 8 February 2021).

Country | Mean | Max | Min | STD | Jarque-Bera |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Gross domestic product (yc_{t}) | |||||

Czech Republic | 0.094 | 5.059 | −2.701 | 1.965 | 4.345 |

Hungary | 0.148 | 4.292 | −3.474 | 1.768 | 2.269 |

Poland | 0.065 | 3.961 | −2.572 | 1.379 | 4.105 |

Romania | −0.091 | 9.998 | −4.259 | 2.538 | 140.88 *** |

Nominal effective exchange rate, in first differences (∆e_{t}) | |||||

Czech Republic | −0.005 | 0.061 | −0.053 | 0.021 | 4.809 * |

Hungary | 0.010 | 0.128 | −0.057 | 0.032 | 53.833 *** |

Poland | −0.001 | 0.151 | −0.071 | 0.037 | 94.879 *** |

Romania | 0.010 | 0.105 | −0.067 | 0.030 | 7.437 ** |

Real exchange rate misalignment (rerc_{t}) | |||||

Czech Republic | 0.038 | 5.673 | −9.636 | 3.201 | 8.508 ** |

Hungary | −0.092 | 10.409 | −9.257 | 3.528 | 6.794 ** |

Poland | −0.231 | 14.860 | −14.292 | 5.321 | 8.987 ** |

Romania | 0.035 | 10.373 | −11.296 | 4.196 | 0.968 |

The Czech Republic | Hungary | Poland | Romania | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Level | ∆ | Level | ∆ | Level | ∆ | Level | ∆ | |

yc_{t} | −2.428 ** | −7.545 *** | −2.696 *** | −6.970 *** | −3.642 *** | −11.849 *** | −2.945 *** | −8.156 *** |

e_{t} | −1.837 * | −5.811 *** | 1.066 | −8.114 *** | −0.323 | −7.392 *** | 1.532 | −5.340 *** |

rerc_{t} | −4.330 *** | −6.986 *** | −6.038 *** | −7.856 *** | −4.553 *** | −7.492 *** | −3.354 *** | −7.577 *** |

The Czech Republic | Hungary | Poland | Romania | |
---|---|---|---|---|

A. Mean equation results | ||||

${r}_{t}^{\ast}-{r}_{t}$ | 0.002 *** | 0.001 *** | 0.005 *** | −0.001 *** |

${p}_{H,t-1}-{p}_{t-1}^{\ast}$ | −0.003 *** | 0.008 | −0.298 *** | −0.007 *** |

B. Variance equation results | ||||

$\omega $ | −6.175 *** | −6.687 ** | −7.961 *** | −6.671 ** |

$\alpha $ | 1.198 *** | 0.660 * | 1.172 *** | 0.635 *** |

$\gamma $ | −0.380 * | 0.491 ** | −0.230 | −0.316 ** |

β | 0.350 *** | 0.212 | 0.060 | 0.298 |

$\Delta cp{i}_{t}$ | −60.059 *** | −11.957 | −13.118 | 14.232 ** |

$CRISI{S}_{t}$ | 1.647 *** | 2.309 ** | 3.017 *** | 1.010 ** |

Obs | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 |

AIC | −5.222 | −4.497 | −4.203 | −4.648 |

The Czech Republic | Hungary | Poland | Romania | |
---|---|---|---|---|

A. Mean equation results | ||||

${r}_{t}^{\ast}-{r}_{t}$ | 0.002 *** | 0.002 *** | 0.005 *** | −0.001 *** |

${p}_{H,t-1}-{p}_{t-1}^{\ast}$ | −0.016 *** | 0.009 *** | −0.174 ** | −0.006 *** |

B. Variance equation results | ||||

$\omega $ | −3.859 *** | −1.989 | −5.156 *** | −5.692 *** |

$\alpha $ | 1.132 *** | 0.735 *** | 1.068 *** | 0.575 ** |

$\gamma $ | −0.310 | 0.461 *** | −0.148 | −0.218 * |

β | 0.328 ** | 0.405 ** | −0.002 | 0.198 |

$\Delta cp{i}_{t}$ | −68.857 *** | −38.708 ** | −43.191 | 15.671 *** |

$CRISI{S}_{t}$ | 1.832 *** | 1.571 *** | 2.965 ** | 0.584 * |

$heri{t}_{t}^{5}$ | ― | ― | ― | −0.036 ** |

$heri{t}_{t}^{6}$ | ― | −0.104 *** | ― | ― |

$heri{t}_{t}^{7}$ | −0.052 ** | ― | −0.067 *** | ― |

$heri{t}_{t}^{9}$ | ― | 0.059 ** | ― | ― |

Obs | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 |

AIC | −5.215 | −4.528 | −4.160 | −4.640 |

The Czech Republic | Hungary | Poland | Romania | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

(1) | (2) | (1) | (2) | (1) | (2) | (1) | (2) | |

yc_{t−}_{1} | 0.360 *** | 0.357 *** | 0.640 *** | 0.638 *** | 0.418 *** | 0.430 *** | 0.680 *** | 0.669 *** |

yeuroc_{t} | 0.860 *** | 0.866 *** | 0.318 *** | 0.324 *** | 0.563 *** | 0.524 *** | 0.398 ** | 0.388 ** |

$eva{r}_{t}^{1}$ | 53.257 *** | ― | −91.930 *** | ― | 30.180 | ― | −229.22 | ― |

$eva{r}_{t}^{2}$ | ― | 72.001 *** | ― | −135.27 *** | ― | 13.939 | ― | −167.33 |

rerc_{t} | ― | ― | 0.023 | 0.023 | 0.073 *** | 0.080 *** | ― | ― |

rerc_{t−}_{1} | 0.034 | 0.035 | ― | ― | ― | ― | 0.008 | 0.014 |

∆herit_{t} | 7.773 | 7.901 | −4.697 | −3.577 | 0.967 | 1.165 | 7.909 | 8.169 |

herit_{t} | −0.196 *** | −0.199 *** | −0.091 * | −0.084 * | −0.088 * | −0.092 * | −0.174 | −0.203 |

trade_{t−}_{1} | −0.068 * | −0.067 | −0.077 *** | −0.082 *** | −0.039 | −0.054 * | −0.076 | −0.076 |

EU_{t} | 1.145 *** | 1.149 *** | 0.967 *** | 0.985 *** | 0.285 | 0.385 * | 0.356 | 0.463 |

Obs | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 |

Adj. R^{2} | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.68 | 0.67 | 0.71 | 0.71 |

The Czech Republic | Hungary | Poland | Romania | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

(1) | (2) | (1) | (2) | (1) | (2) | (1) | (2) | |

yc_{t−}_{1} | 0.240 *** | 0.238 *** | 0.645 *** | 0.619 *** | 0.327 *** | 0.331 *** | 0.670 *** | 0.668 *** |

yeuroc_{t} | 0.936 *** | 0.939 *** | 0.333 ** | 0.375 *** | 0.521 *** | 0.493 *** | 0.406 *** | 0.381 ** |

$eva{r}_{t}^{1}$ | 38.360 ** | ― | −97.045 *** | ― | 11.991 | ― | −442.11 | ― |

$eva{r}_{t}^{2}$ | ― | 50.948 * | ― | −136.54 *** | ― | −0.478 | ― | −517.79 |

rerc_{t} | ― | ― | 0.034 * | 0.031 | 0.083 *** | 0.084 *** | ― | ― |

rerc_{t−}_{1} | 0.048 ** | 0.049 ** | ― | ― | ― | ― | 0.057 | 0.058 |

∆herit_{t} | 4.655 | 4.685 | −4.926 | −4.460 | −4.622 | −4.768 | 11.400 | 11.059 |

herit_{t} | −0.113 *** | −0.116 *** | −0.072 | −0.088 | −0.037 | −0.029 | −0.277 * | −0.267 * |

trade_{t−}_{1} | −0.129 ** | −0.128 ** | −0.072 ** | −0.074 ** | −0.066 * | −0.078 * | −0.117 ** | −0.120 ** |

EU_{t} | 1.255 *** | 1.261 *** | 0.836 *** | 0.926 *** | 0.316 | 0.350 | 0.892 * | 0.890 * |

moneyc_{t} | 0.064 * | 0.064 * | 0.016 | 0.001 | 0.066 ** | 0.071 ** | 0.033 | 0.041 |

budget_{t−}_{1} | 0.085 *** | 0.086 *** | −0.014 | −0.021 | 0.087 | 0.103 | 0.160 ** | 0.163 ** |

Obs | 72 | 72 | 76 | 76 | 80 | 80 | 73 | 73 |

Adj. R^{2} | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.74 | 0.74 |

The Czech Republic | Hungary | Poland | Romania | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

(1) | (2) | (1) | (2) | (1) | (2) | (1) | (2) | |

yc_{t−}_{1} | 0.304 *** | 0.301 *** | 0.498 *** | 0.514 *** | 0.307 *** | 0.311 *** | 0.668 *** | 0.664 *** |

yeuroc_{t} | 0.830 *** | 0.834 *** | 0.404 *** | 0.392 *** | 0.517 *** | 0.482 *** | 0.437 *** | 0.458 ** |

$eva{r}_{t}^{1}$ | 46.973 *** | ― | −59.862 *** | ― | 31.262 * | ― | −83.717 | ― |

$eva{r}_{t}^{2}$ | ― | 62.817 *** | ― | −91.840 *** | ― | 21.202 | ― | −15.943 |

rerc_{t} | ― | ― | 0.015 | 0.012 | 0.091 *** | 0.097 *** | ― | ― |

rerc_{t−}_{1} | 0.022 | 0.022 | ― | ― | ― | ― | 0.064 | 0.067 |

∆herit_{t} | 3.453 | 3.605 | 4.835 | 5.042 | −1.372 | −0.556 | 14.565 * | 14.923 * |

herit_{t} | −0.164 ** | −0.168 ** | 0.113 | 0.102 | −0.254 ** | −0.256 ** | −0.419 ** | −0.446 ** |

trade_{t−}_{1} | −0.087 * | −0.086 * | −0.147 *** | −0.144 *** | ― | ― | −0.084 | −0.081 |

EU_{t} | 1.207 *** | 1.212 *** | 0.783 *** | 0.828 *** | 0.756 ** | 0.802 ** | 1.377 ** | 1.466 ** |

rcb_{t} | 0.056 | 0.058 | −0.137 *** | −0.129 *** | 0.119 *** | 0.129 *** | 0.021 | 0.025 |

budget_{t−}_{1} | 0.077 *** | 0.077 *** | −0.026 | −0.027 | 0.085 | 0.102 | 0.149 ** | 0.153 ** |

Obs | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 68 | 68 |

Adj. R^{2} | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.89 | 0.90 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.73 | 0.73 |

The Czech Republic | Hungary | Poland | Romania | |
---|---|---|---|---|

${\gamma}_{0}$ | 7.748 *** | 5.965 *** | 4.450 *** | 6.002 *** |

${\gamma}_{1}$ | −0.663 *** | −0.276 *** | 0.043 | −0.294 *** |

Obs | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 |

Adj. R^{2} | 0.69 | 0.12 | 0.01 | 0.43 |

The Czech Republic | Hungary | Poland | Romania | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

(1) | (2) | (1) | (2) | (1) | (2) | (1) | (2) | |

yc_{t−}_{1} | 0.187 * | 0.185 * | 0.586 *** | 0.596 *** | 0.366 *** | 0.373 *** | 0.640 *** | 0.638 *** |

yeuroc_{t} | 0.949 *** | 0.951 *** | 0.355 ** | 0.356 *** | 0.474 *** | 0.427 *** | 0.303 ** | 0.278 * |

$eva{r}_{t}^{1}$ | 37.831 * | ― | −87.808 *** | ― | 22.424 | ― | −444.68 | ― |

$eva{r}_{t}^{2}$ | ― | 49.362 * | ― | −129.40 *** | ― | 5.169 | ― | −498.50 |

rerpppc_{t} | ― | ― | 0.027 * | 0.024 | 0.063 *** | 0.063 *** | ― | ― |

rerpppc_{t−}_{1} | 0.033 * | 0.033 * | ― | ― | ― | ― | 0.040 | 0.039 |

∆herit_{t} | 8.567 | 8.618 | −2.809 | −2.327 | −6.044 | −6.607 | 11.398 | 10.853 |

herit_{t} | −0.184 *** | −0.187 *** | −0.161 ** | −0.157 ** | −0.140 | −0.126 | −0.389 ** | −0.372 ** |

trade_{t−}_{1} | −0.180 ** | −0.179 ** | −0.085 ** | −0.085 ** | −0.099 ** | −0.115 *** | −0.160 ** | −0.159 ** |

EU_{t} | 1.805 *** | 1.813 *** | 1.256 *** | 1.244 *** | 0.743 ** | 0.783 ** | 1.212 ** | 1.179 ** |

moneyc_{t} | 0.075 ** | 0.075 * | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.045 | 0.052 * | 0.034 | 0.040 |

budget_{t−}_{1} | 0.067 *** | 0.067 *** | −0.032 | −0.035 | 0.069 | 0.093 | 0.162 ** | 0.161 ** |

Obs | 72 | 72 | 76 | 76 | 80 | 80 | 73 | 73 |

Adj. R^{2} | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.87 | 0.88 | 0.67 | 0.65 | 0.73 | 0.73 |

The Czech Republic | Hungary | Poland | Romania | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

(1) | (2) | (1) | (2) | (1) | (2) | (1) | (2) | |

yc_{t−}_{1} | 0.279 *** | 0.276 *** | 0.505 *** | 0.501 *** | 0.345 *** | 0.354 *** | 0.654 *** | 0.651 *** |

yeuroc_{t} | 0.833 *** | 0.837 *** | 0.410 *** | 0.398 *** | 0.484 *** | 0.437 *** | 0.373 ** | 0.391 * |

$eva{r}_{t}^{1}$ | 45.579 ** | ― | −52.010 *** | ― | 47.452 *** | ― | −157.76 | ― |

$eva{r}_{t}^{2}$ | ― | 60.632 ** | ― | −81.150 *** | ― | 41.580 | ― | −82.239 |

rerpppc_{t} | ― | ― | −0.014 | −0.014 | 0.059 *** | 0.062 *** | ― | ― |

rerpppc_{t−}_{1} | 0.007 | 0.007 | ― | ― | ― | ― | 0.024 | 0.023 |

∆herit_{t} | 5.425 | 5.609 | 5.398 | 5.479 | −6.651 | −6.475 | 14.545 * | 14.455 * |

herit_{t} | −0.196 *** | −0.201 *** | 0.197 | 0.186 | −0.306 ** | −0.303 ** | −0.488 ** | −0.510 ** |

trade_{t−}_{1} | −0.085 | −0.084 | −0.147 *** | −0.144 *** | ― | ― | −0.101 | −0.094 |

EU_{t} | 1.305 *** | 1.311 *** | 0.528 | 0.541 | 0.992 ** | 1.024 ** | 1.548 ** | 1.618 ** |

rcb_{t} | 0.089 | 0.091 | −0.164 *** | −0.156 *** | 0.100 *** | 0.108 *** | 0.039 | 0.044 |

budget_{t−}_{1} | 0.074 *** | 0.074 *** | −0.029 | −0.030 | 0.040 | 0.061 | 0.130 * | 0.132 * |

Obs | 78 | 78 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 68 | 68 |

Adj. R^{2} | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.89 | 0.90 | 0.67 | 0.65 | 0.74 | 0.74 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Shevchuk, V.; Kopych, R.
Exchange Rate Volatility, Currency Misalignment, and Risk of Recession in the Central and Eastern European Countries. *Risks* **2021**, *9*, 82.
https://doi.org/10.3390/risks9050082

**AMA Style**

Shevchuk V, Kopych R.
Exchange Rate Volatility, Currency Misalignment, and Risk of Recession in the Central and Eastern European Countries. *Risks*. 2021; 9(5):82.
https://doi.org/10.3390/risks9050082

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Shevchuk, Victor, and Roman Kopych.
2021. "Exchange Rate Volatility, Currency Misalignment, and Risk of Recession in the Central and Eastern European Countries" *Risks* 9, no. 5: 82.
https://doi.org/10.3390/risks9050082