According to the traditional theory, an exchange rate depreciation usually implies a real currency depreciation which increases the volume of exports. At least four conditions have to be verified for this effect to be observed: (1) The depreciation is not transmitted to domestic prices, (2) export prices are set in the exporter’s currency, (3) the foreign demand is sufficiently elastic (Marshall-Lerner condition), and (4) exporter’s supply is sufficiently elastic too.
This paper does not study the existence of those conditions, since previous studies have shown that they are likely to be observed. Nevertheless, several recent papers have underlined the non systematic character of the existence of J-Curve or competitiveness effect. Duttagupta and Spilimbergo (2004) study the Asian 1997-1998 currency crises and show that exports did not increase during this period. More generally, recent crises events (Argentina and Uruguay, 2002, Brazil 1999) underline this lack of reaction of exports to exchange rate shocks. Our study attempts to explain these stylized facts by studying the existing interactions between financial imperfections, exchange rate movements and the volume of exports. We show that, even if the four previous conditions are verified, a depreciation will have a less positive - or even a negative impact on exports, if financial market imperfections are present in the economy. Moreover, we also show that countries’ specialization and the depreciation’s magnitude may have to be taken into account to explain why the traditional competitiveness effect is not always observed.
Canadian Medicare is, once again, under attack. Despite being wildly popular among Canadians, and internationally admired, our system of universal insurance for “medically necessary” hospital and physician services is being dismissed by critics as old-fashioned, unsustainable, economically unfeasible, and otherwise out of step with our new global times. The newspapers are full of announcements of “privatization” of hospital care in Alberta, accusations that “we already have two tier medicine” and might as well finish the job, and seemingly erudite pronouncements that we must choose between “maintaining equity” and economic good sense. Too often, however, these criticisms result from some fundamental confusions about both concepts and evidence. In consequence, they often misinterpret the actual problems with Medicare. Just as physicians cannot treat without an accurate diagnosis, healing Medicare requires that we be clear in defining our terms.
This paper provides some background information about public and private places within our health care system. It begins with some concepts and definitions, including:
• the distinction between how we finance a health care system and how we choose to deliver care;
• the various levels within “public” and “private,” and, more specifically, the difference between for-profit and not-for-profit delivery;
• the ways by which funding can flow between those who finance care, and those who deliver it;
• the nature of insurance, and the concept of “risk selection.”
I first came across Dr. Atkins’ diet by accident when I bought the previous version of his "New Diet Revolution" at a yard sale during my first year in the United States. I knew nothing of the diet, but I became instantly suspicious of it because of its approach, which, at the time, I considered mostly hype.
