EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Business cycles and monetary regimes in emerging economies: A role for a monopolistic banking sector

Federico Mandelman

Journal of International Economics, 2010, vol. 81, issue 1, 122-138

Abstract: This study shows that the presence of imperfect competition in the banking system propagates external shocks and amplifies the business cycle. Strategic limit pricing, aimed at protecting retail niches from potential competitors, generates countercyclical bank markups. Markup increments during recessions directly increase borrowing costs for firms and indirectly damage the financial position of firms' balance-sheets, increasing the risk perception of lenders. I use Bayesian techniques and data from Argentina to show that the inclusion of monopolistic banking improves the fit of the New Keynesian small open economy model.

Keywords: Small; open; economy; Countercyclical; bank; markups; Exchange; rate; regimes; Bayesian; estimation; balance-sheet; effect (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2010
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (30)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022-1996(09)00135-4
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
Working Paper: Business cycles and monetary regimes in emerging economies: a role for a monopolistic banking sector (2006) Downloads
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:inecon:v:81:y:2010:i:1:p:122-138

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of International Economics is currently edited by Gourinchas, Pierre-Olivier and Rodríguez-Clare, Andrés

More articles in Journal of International Economics from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().

 
Page updated 2025-03-19
Handle: RePEc:eee:inecon:v:81:y:2010:i:1:p:122-138