Foreign Exchange Market Organization in Selected Developing and Transition Economies: Evidence from a Survey Jorge Iván Canales Kriljenko imf working paper wp04/4
Download 341.94 Kb. Pdf ko'rish
|
wp0404
|
Republic, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, India,
Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Korea, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Lithuania, Macedonia (FYR), Madagascar, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia,, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, and Zambia. 2/ Follows the IMF's de facto exchange rate regime classification as published in the IMF's International Financial Statistics. 3/ Corresponds to the Fund member developing and transition countries considered as emerging markets in the Fund's internal quarterly publication named "Emerging Market Financing: A Quarterly Report on Developments and Prospects". Some countries have become emerging markets after March 2002, which is the cutoff date for this study. 4/ The Central African Economic and Monetary Community (CAEMC) is itself a conventional fixed peg arrangement. -- stands for not applicable, zero, or negligible amount. - 27 - APPENDIX Table 2. Selected Regulations on Forward Foreign Exchange Transactions in Developing and Transition Economies, 2001 (In percent of countries answering the Survey in each category) Market Access Exchange Rate Regime 1/ Emerging Markets 2/ Other Pegged Intermediate Flexible Total Forward markets allowed 89 63 70 58 84 76 Forward markets not allowed 5 24 18 8 13 14 Not able to determine 7 13 12 33 2 10 Types of derivative contracts allowed Outright forward contracts 89 63 70 58 84 76 Nondeliverable forward contracts 59 28 33 42 51 43 Futures 61 30 39 42 51 46 Options 77 30 45 42 62 53 Requirements for offering forward contracts Quantitative limits 11 20 18 17 13 16 Verification of existence of legally permitted underlying current or capital transactions 27 33 39 17 27 30 Transaction made only on behalf of their Customers 5 11 15 0 4 8 Freely 66 24 30 33 58 44 Not able to determine 2 0 0 0 2 1 Subjective Assessment of forward markets Developed 34 7 21 8 22 20 Undeveloped 48 52 42 67 51 50 Other 11 2 6 0 9 7 Not able to determine 7 39 30 25 18 23 Developed, liquid, and deep 14 4 6 0 13 9 Undeveloped, illiquid, and shallow 32 30 27 42 31 31 Source: IMF, 2001 Survey on Foreign Exchange Market Organization. 1/ The exchange rate regimes group categories from the IMF's de facto exchange rate regime classification as published in the IMF's International Financial Statistics. Pegged regimes include countries without a country specific currency, currency boards, and conventional fixed peg arrangements. Intermediate regimes include pegged exchange rate within horizontal bands, crawling pegs, and exchange rates within crawling bands. Flexible regimes include managed and independently floating exchange rate regimes. 2/ Corresponds to the Fund member developing and transition countries considered as emerging markets in the Fund's quarterly publication "Emerging Market Financing: A Quarterly Report on Developments and Prospects". - 28 - APPENDIX Table 3. Survey Respondents Allowing Offshore Trading of Domestic Currency, by Exchange Rate Regime and Market Access, 2001 1/ (In percent of countries answering the corresponding Survey question in each category) Exchange rate regimes 2/ Developing and Transition Economies Total Emerging Markets 3/ Other No country-specific currency -- -- -- CAEMC 4/ -- -- -- Other -- -- -- Country-specific currency 70 32 51 Currency board 100 50 75 Conventional fixed pegs against a single currency 71 8 32 Conventional fixed pegs against a composite 67 60 63 Pegs with horizontal bands within a cooperative arrangement -- -- -- Pegs with horizontal bands within a Fund supported program -- 50 50 Crawling pegs -- 50 33 Exchange rates within crawling bands 80 -- 57 Managed floating, no preannounced path for exchange rate 53 55 54 Independently floating 91 13 58 Total 70 30 50 Memo item: Number of countries answering question 44 46 90 In percent of survey respondents 100 100 100 Source: IMF, 2001 Survey on Foreign Exchange Market Organization. 1/ The 2001 Survey on Foreign Exchange Market Organization was sent to country authorities in all Fund member developing and transition economies on October 2001. Ninety answers were received by March 2002. Table 1 shows the list of respondents. 2/ Follows the IMF's de facto exchange rate regime classification as published in the IMF's International Financial Statistics. 3/ Corresponds to the Fund member developing and transition countries considered as emerging markets in the Fund's quarterly publication "Emerging Market Financing: A Quarterly Report on Developments and Prospects". 4/ The Central African Economic and Monetary Community (CAEMC) is itself a conventional fixed peg arrangement. -- stands for not applicable, zero, or negligible amount. - 29 - APPENDIX Table 4. Share of the Main International Currencies in Foreign Exchange Market Turnover of Selected Countries, 2001 (In percent) Countries 1/ Source U.S. dollar Euro 2/ Pound sterling Japanese yen Other Total Angola Survey 98.0 1.0 0.1 -- 0.9 100.0 Australia BIS Local 3/ 95.5 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.2 100.0 Austria BIS Local 3/ 77.4 -- 2.2 8.3 12.0 100.0 Azerbaijan Survey 99.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 99.0 Bahamas Survey 98.0 -- 1.0 1.0 -- 100.0 Bahrain BIS Local 3/ 67.9 0.9 1.8 0.9 28.6 100.0 Belarus Survey 80.0 15.0 -- -- 5.0 100.0 Belgium BIS Local 3/ 79.6 -- 7.4 2.7 10.2 100.0 Bolivia Survey 75.0 11.0 3.0 10.0 1.0 100.0 Brazil Survey 89.0 6.5 4.0 0.4 0.1 100.0 Brazil BIS Local 3/ 93.1 2.3 0.0 2.3 2.3 100.0 Bulgaria Survey 31.6 66.4 0.9 0.0 1.0 100.0 Canada BIS Local 3/ 98.1 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.3 100.0 Chile Survey 99.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.1 100.0 Chile BIS Local 3/ 99.8 0.1 -- 0.0 -- 100.0 Colombia Survey 97.4 1.1 -- 1.3 0.2 100.0 Colombia BIS Local 3/ 97.4 1.1 -- 1.3 0.3 100.0 Congo, Republic of Survey 90.0 5.0 2.0 0.5 2.5 100.0 Czech Republic Survey 39.2 33.4 -- 0.0 1.0 73.7 Czech Republic BIS Local 3/ 57.8 41.2 0.2 0.1 0.7 100.0 Denmark BIS Local 3/ 76.4 18.2 1.6 0.6 3.2 100.0 Estonia Survey 22.9 70.5 1.0 0.1 5.5 100.0 Finland BIS Local 3/ 71.0 -- 5.5 1.8 21.6 100.0 France BIS Local 3/ 90.2 -- 3.9 2.8 3.1 100.0 Germany BIS Local 3/ 80.3 -- 5.7 5.5 8.5 100.0 Greece BIS Local 3/ 61.3 -- 1.0 36.4 1.4 100.0 Honduras Survey 97.0 -- -- -- 3.0 100.0 Hong Kong SAR BIS Local 3/ 98.7 -- -- -- 1.3 100.0 Hungary Survey 47.0 52.0 0.4 0.1 0.6 100.0 Hungary BIS Local 3/ 28.2 66.5 2.1 0.5 2.7 100.0 India BIS Local 3/ 95.0 1.9 2.2 0.2 0.6 100.0 Indonesia BIS Local 3/ 98.1 0.5 -- 0.5 0.9 100.0 Iran Survey 90.0 9.0 1.0 -- -- 100.0 Ireland BIS Local 3/ 77.0 -- 12.6 7.4 3.0 100.0 Israel Survey 87.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 87.0 Italy BIS Local 3/ 77.8 -- 5.4 10.6 6.2 100.0 Japan BIS Local 3/ 92.6 5.7 0.6 -- 1.1 100.0 Korea BIS Local 3/ 98.6 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.3 100.0 Latvia Survey 54.0 30.0 3.0 -- 13.0 100.0 Lesotho Survey 30.0 10.0 5.0 1.0 54.0 100.0 Lithuania Survey 88.2 9.7 0.5 n.a. n.a. 98.4 Continued on next page - 30 - APPENDIX Table 4. Share of the Main International Currencies in Foreign Exchange Market Turnover of Selected Countries, 2001 (concluded) (In percent) Countries 1/ Source U.S. dollar Euro 2/ Pound sterling Japanese yen Other Total Luxembourg BIS Local 3/ 80.1 -- 5.9 4.8 9.3 100.0 Malaysia BIS Local 3/ 96.7 1.0 0.3 1.1 1.0 100.0 Mexico Survey 99.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 -- 100.0 Mexico BIS Local 3/ 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Moldova Survey 86.7 4.0 0.0 -- 9.3 100.0 Netherlands BIS Local 3/ 81.6 -- 7.4 4.9 6.1 100.0 New Zealand BIS Local 3/ 90.1 1.9 1.6 1.6 4.9 100.0 Nicaragua Survey 95.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 95.0 Norway BIS Local 3/ 85.9 11.4 0.8 0.7 1.2 100.0 Papua New Guinea Survey 66.0 -- 2.0 3.0 29.0 100.0 Peru Survey 100.0 -- -- -- -- 100.0 Peru BIS Local 3/ 100.0 -- -- -- -- 100.0 Philippines BIS Local 3/ 98.9 0.2 0.4 0.4 -- 100.0 Poland Survey 75.0 15.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 90.0 Poland BIS Local 3/ 79.2 5.3 -- -- 15.6 100.0 Portugal BIS Local 3/ 70.0 -- 11.4 9.4 9.2 100.0 Russia BIS Local 3/ 98.2 0.3 -- -- 1.4 100.0 Saudi Arabia BIS Local 3/ 96.9 0.8 0.2 0.2 1.9 100.0 Singapore BIS Local 3/ 97.8 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.9 100.0 Slovakia BIS Local 3/ 76.4 22.6 0.3 -- 0.8 100.0 Slovenia BIS Local 3/ 9.9 54.9 1.1 -- 34.1 100.0 South Africa BIS Local 3/ 97.0 1.4 0.8 0.5 0.4 100.0 Spain BIS Local 3/ 90.0 -- 3.6 3.2 3.2 100.0 Sri Lanka Survey 84.0 8.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 100.0 Sweden BIS Local 3/ 56.3 21.3 2.2 0.7 19.4 100.0 Switzerland BIS Local 3/ 77.1 18.4 2.2 1.7 0.6 100.0 Syria Survey 50.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 100.0 Taiwan, China BIS Local 3/ 95.4 0.6 0.2 2.2 1.7 100.0 Thailand BIS Local 3/ 97.2 0.6 0.3 1.5 0.5 100.0 Trinidad and Tobago Survey 90.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 100.0 Tunisia Survey 56.5 35.7 0.4 4.7 2.7 100.0 Turkey BIS Local 3/ 88.8 11.2 -- -- -- 100.0 Ukraine Survey 70.0 21.6 4.6 2.5 1.3 100.0 United Kingdom BIS Local 3/ 83.2 13.9 -- 1.4 1.6 100.0 United States BIS Local 3/ -- 35.7 9.6 26.3 28.4 100.0 Vanuatu Survey 99.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 99.0 Sources: IMF's 2001 Survey on Foreign Exchange Market Organization and Bank of International Settlements. 1/ Countries are repeated when two sources are available. 2/ Includes euro-legacy currencies (Deutsche mark, French franc, among others) in the Survey responses. 3/ Foreign exchange turnover of the local currencies against the main international currencies, net of local interdealer double- counting by country and currency in April 2001. - 31 - APPENDIX Table 5. Number of Foreign Exchange Intermediaries, 2001 Foreign Exchange Dealers Voice brokers Banks Bureaus Others Total Of which: Market makers Albania 13 24 3 40 1/ 10 n.a. Angola 8 13 -- 21 1 -- Armenia 29 216 15 260 2/ n.a. n.a. Azerbaijan 52 -- -- 52 -- -- Bahamas 7 -- 2 9 1/ -- -- Bahrain n.a. -- -- 0 n.a. 4 Bangladesh 605 518 -- 1123 n.a. -- Barbados 8 1 -- 9 8 -- Belarus 26 -- -- 26 -- -- Bhutan 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Bolivia 12 44 39 95 1/ -- -- Brazil 119 -- 285 404 30 51 Bulgaria 35 760 -- 795 6 64 Cambodia 28 17 -- 45 -- -- Cape Verde 4 3 -- 7 -- -- Chile 25 5 -- 30 n.a. -- Colombia 26 12 52 90 1/ 3/ 90 26 Congo, Republic of 13 24 -- 37 24 -- Costa Rica 21 2 11 34 1/ -- 2 Croatia 42 -- 13 55 1/ 5 -- Czech Republic n.a. 13 -- 13 12 13 Djibouti 3 4 -- 7 -- -- Dominican Republic 14 100 -- 114 n.a. n.a. Egypt 51 126 -- 177 -- -- El Salvador 15 10 -- 25 n.a. -- Estonia 7 190 -- 197 7 n.a. Fiji 5 11 -- 16 n.a. n.a. Ghana 17 350 -- 367 n.a. -- Guatemala 31 8 16 55 1/ 3 -- Guyana 7 28 -- 35 -- n.a. Honduras 21 -- 4 25 1/ -- 7 Hungary 28 700 -- 728 12.5 -- India 100 470 -- 570 10 -- Iran 10 -- -- 10 n.a. n.a. Kazakhstan -- 626 -- 626 29 -- Kenya 52 48 -- 100 n.a. -- Korea 70 -- -- 70 9 -- Kuwait 9 29 -- 38 9 2 Kyrgyz Republic 19 259 -- 278 n.a. n.a. Lao 13 12 -- 25 -- -- Lebanon 68 367 28 463 1/ 1 5 Continued on next page. - 32 - APPENDIX Table 5. Number of Foreign Exchange Intermediaries, 2001 (concluded) Foreign Exchange Dealers Voice brokers Banks Bureaus Others Total Of which: Market makers Lesotho 2 -- -- 2 2 -- Libya 27 -- -- 27 -- -- Lithuania 14 -- 3 17 1/ 3.5 -- Macedonia, FYR 10 -- -- 10 18 -- Madagascar 1 1 -- 2 -- -- Malaysia 32 627 -- 659 n.a. -- Malta 4 11 -- 15 2 -- Mauritius 21 -- -- 21 10 n.a. Mexico 40 26 -- 66 7 -- Moldova 440 182 -- 622 5 -- Morocco 15 -- -- 15 -- -- Mozambique 13 31 8 52 1/ -- -- Namibia 5 1 -- 6 4 -- Nepal 15 63 -- 78 -- -- Nicaragua 5 4 2 11 1/ 11 -- Oman 15 -- -- 15 -- -- Pakistan 43 -- -- 43 10 -- Papua New Guinea 6 -- -- 6 6 -- Paraguay 20 23 -- 43 n.a. -- Qatar 15 16 -- 31 15 -- Romania 41 370 -- 411 n.a. -- Samoa 3 4 -- 7 -- -- Sierra Leone 6 31 -- 37 6 -- Slovak Republic n.a. 600 -- 600 n.a. n.a. Slovenia 20 -- -- 20 3 -- South Africa 36 7 -- 43 8 -- Sri Lanka 24 32 -- 56 13 -- Swaziland 4 -- -- 4 -- -- Tanzania 17 -- 6 23 1/ n.a. -- Thailand 32 -- 3 35 4/ n.a. -- Tonga 3 2 -- 5 3 n.a. Trinidad and Tobago 10 7 -- 17 -- -- Turkey 75 778 -- 853 n.a. -- Ukraine 149 3931 -- 4080 n.a. n.a. Uruguay 22 57 25 104 1/ 5/ n.a. -- Venezuela 38 19 7 64 1/ 3 -- Yemen 14 264 -- 278 20 -- Zambia 16 44 -- 60 4 -- Source: IMF's 2001 Survey on Foreign Exchange Market Organization and country authorities. 1/ Nonbank financial institutions 2/ Independent dealers 3/ Includes two state enterprises 4/ Export-Import Bank of Thailand, Industrial Finance Corporation of Thailand, and a finance company. 5/ Includes 6 offshore institutions - 33 - APPENDIX Table 6. Interbank Market Turnover in Selected Developing and Transition Economies, 2000 (In percent of foreign exchange market turnover at bank-customer level) Country 1 636.4 Country 10 20.0 Country 2 188.4 Country 11 18.6 Country 3 85.9 Country 12 17.7 Country 4 83.1 Country 13 17.0 Country 5 49.2 Country 14 10.6 Country 6 48.8 Country 15 6.1 Country 7 47.1 Country 16 3.8 Country 8 24.7 Country 17 1.9 Country 9 20.1 Country 18 0.0 Source: IMF, 2001 Survey on Foreign Exchange Market Organization. 1/ The different levels of foreign exchange market turnover exclude transactions with the central bank. - 34 - APPENDIX Table 7. Net Open Foreign Exchange Position Limits in Developing and Transition Economies, 2001 (In percent of capital) Overall Positions Single Currency Positions Long Short Long Short Albania 30 1/ 30 1/ 20 1/ -- Armenia 25 1/ 25 1/ 5 1/ -- Azerbaijan 20 1/ 20 1/ 10 1/ -- Bangladesh 12.5 1/ -- -- -- Belarus 10 2/ 10 2/ 10 -- Bolivia 80 1/ 20 1/ 80 1/ 20 1/ Brazil 60 1/ 60 1/ 60 1/ 60 1/ Bulgaria 30 1/ 30 1/ 15 1/ -- Cambodia -- 15 1/ 5 1/ 5 1/ Chile 20 1/ 20 1/ -- -- China, Mainland 20 3/ -- -- -- Colombia 20 1/ 5 1/ -- -- Costa Rica 100 1/ -- -- -- Croatia 20 1/ -- -- -- Czech Republic 20 1/ 20 1/ 15 1/ -- Egypt 20 1/ 20 1/ 10 1/ -- El Salvador 10 1/ -- 1/ -- -- Estonia 30 1/ 30 1/ 10 1/ -- Fiji 25 1/ 25 1/ 12.5 1/ -- Ghana 30 2/ -- -- -- Guatemala 60 1/ 20 1/ 60 1/ -- Hungary 30 1/ 30 1/ -- -- India -- 25 1/ 5/ -- -- Indonesia 20 1/ 20 1/ 20 1/ -- Kazakhstan 30 1/ 30 1/ 5 1/ 5 1/ Kenya 20 2/ 20 2/ 20 2/ 20 2/ Korea 20 2/ 20 2/ -- -- Kyrgyz Republic 20 1/ 20 1/ 10 1/ -- Lao 20 1/ -- 15 1/ -- Latvia 20 1/ 20 1/ 10 1/ 10 1/ Lebanon 4/ 1 2/ 1 2/ -- -- Lesotho 20 1/ 20 1/ 10 1/ -- Lithuania 25 1/ 25 1/ 15 1/ -- Macedonia, FYR 40 1/ 10 1/ 20 1/ -- Malta 20 1/ 20 1/ 5 1/ -- Mauritius 15 2/ 15 2/ -- -- Mexico 15 1/ 15 1/ -- -- Continued on next page - 35 - APPENDIX Table 7. Net Open Foreign Exchange Position Limits in Developing and Transition Economies, 2001 (concluded) (In percent of capital) Overall Positions Single Currency Positions Long Short Long Short Moldova 20 1/ 20 1/ 10 1/ -- Morocco 20 1/ 20 1/ 10 1/ -- Mozambique 20 1/ -- 10 1/ -- Namibia 15 1/ 15 1/ 15 1/ -- Oman 40 1/ -- -- -- Pakistan 10 2/ 10 2/ -- -- Papua New Guinea 15 1/ 15 1/ 10 1/ -- Paraguay 100 1/ 75 1/ 100 1/ -- Peru 100 1/ 2.5 1/ -- -- Philippines 5 1/ -- -- -- Poland -- -- 15 1/ 15 1/ Qatar -- -- 1 1/ -- Romania 10 1/ 10 1/ -- -- Sierra Leone 25 1/ -- 15 1/ -- Slovak Republic 25 1/ 25 1/ 10 2/ 10 2/ Slovenia 20 1/ 20 1/ -- -- South Africa 10 1/ 10 1/ 10 1/ -- Swaziland 25 1/ -- 10 1/ 10 1/ Tanzania 20 2/ 20 2/ 20 1/ -- Thailand 15 2/ 15 2/ -- -- Turkey 20 1/ 20 1/ -- -- Ukraine 30 1/ 5 1/ -- -- Uruguay 150 1/ -- -- -- Venezuela 12 1/ 12 1/ -- -- Yemen 25 1/ 25 1/ 15 1/ -- Zambia 15 1/ 15 1/ 10 1/ -- Source: IMF's 2001 Survey on Foreign Exchange Market Organization and country authorities. 1/ In percent of overall capital. 2/ In percent of tier I capital 3/ In percent of working capital 4/ In addition, Lebanon imposes a 40 percent limit on the overall net open foreign exchange position, estimated by the shorthand method. 5/ The net open foreign exchange positions can be raised up to 25 percent of capital with central bank approval. - 36 - APPENDIX Table 8. Electronic Dealing Systems in Developing and Transition Economies, 2001 Central Bank Platform Private Sector Platform Reuters Dealing System Central Bank Platform Private Sector Platform Reuters' Dealing System Albania Libya Angola Lithuania Armenia Macedonia, FYR Bangladesh Malaysia Belarus Malta Brazil Mauritius Bulgaria Moldova Chile Morocco Colombia Oman Croatia Pakistan The Czech Republic Papua New Guinea Egypt Peru Fiji The Philippines Guatemala Poland India Romania Indonesia The Slovak Republic Iran Slovenia Israel Sri Lanka Kazakhstan Syria Korea Turkey Kuwait Ukraine The Kyrgyz Republic The United Arab Emirates Latvia Uruguay Lebanon Venezuela Sources: IMF, 2001 Survey on Foreign Exchange Market Organization, country authorities, and Reuters. - 37 - APPENDIX Table 9. Survey Respondents Adopting a Code of Conduct for Foreign Exchange Operations. by Exchange Rate Regime and Market Access, 2001 1/ (In percent of member countries responding the Survey in each category) Exchange rate regimes 2/ Developing and Transition Economies Total Emerging Markets Other No country-specific currency -- 50 50 CAEMC 4/ -- 100 100 Other -- -- -- Country-specific currency 89 61 75 Currency board 100 100 100 Conventional fixed pegs against a single currency 86 75 79 Conventional fixed pegs against a composite 67 40 50 Pegs with horizontal bands within a cooperative arrangement -- -- -- Pegs with horizontal bands within a Fund supported program -- 50 50 Crawling pegs 100 50 67 Exchange rates within crawling bands 80 -- 57 Managed floating, no preannounced path for exchange rate 93 64 81 Independently floating 91 63 79 Total 89 61 74 Memo item: No answer available 2 13 8 Source: IMF, 2001 Survey on Foreign Exchange Market Organization. 1/ The 2001 Survey on Foreign Exchange Market Organization was sent to country authorities in all developing and transition economies on October 2001. Ninety answers were received by March 2002. Table 1 shows the list of respondents. 2/ Follows the IMF's de facto exchange rate regime classification as published in the IMF's International Financial Statistics. 3/ Corresponds to the Fund member developing and transition countries considered as emerging markets in the Fund's internal quarterly publication named "Emerging Market Financing: A Quarterly Report on Developments and Prospects". The emerging markets that answered the survey are The Bahamas, Bahrain, Brazil, Chile, China (Mainland), Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, The Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Korea, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, The Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, and Venezuela. 4/ The Central African Economic and Monetary Community (CAEMC) is itself a conventional fixed peg arrangement. -- stands for not applicable, zero, or negligible amount. - 38 - APPENDIX Table 10. Survey Respondents with Professional Dealers' Associations, by Exchange Rate Regime and Market Access, 2001 1/ (In percent of member countries responding the Survey question in each category) Exchange rate regimes 2/ Developing and Transition Economies Total Emerging Markets 3/ Other No country-specific currency -- 100 100 CAEMC 4/ -- 100 100 Other -- 100 100 Country-specific currency 77 43 60 Currency board -- 50 25 Conventional fixed pegs against a single currency 57 42 47 Conventional fixed pegs against a composite 67 20 38 Pegs with horizontal bands within a cooperative arrangement -- -- -- Pegs with horizontal bands within a Fund supported program -- 50 50 Crawling pegs -- 50 33 Exchange rates within crawling bands 100 -- 71 Managed floating, no preannounced path for exchange rate 86 55 72 Independently floating 91 50 74 Total 77 46 61 Memo item: Number of countries answering question 43 46 89 In percent of survey respondents 98 100 99 Source: IMF, 2001 Survey on Foreign Exchange Market Organization. 1/ The 2001 Survey on Foreign Exchange Market Organization was sent to country authorities in all developing and transition economies on October 2001. Ninety answers were received by March 2002. Table 1 shows the list of respondents. 2/ Follows the IMF's de facto exchange rate regime classification as published in the IMF's International Financial Statistics. 3/ Corresponds to the Fund member developing and transition countries considered as emerging markets in the Fund's quarterly publication "Emerging Market Financing: A Quarterly Report on Developments and Prospects". 4/ The Central African Economic and Monetary Community (CAEMC) is itself a conventional fixed peg arrangement. -- stands for not applicable, zero, or negligible amount. - 39 - APPENDIX Table 11. Survey Respondents Requiring Foreign Exchange Licenses, by Exchange Rate Regime and Market Access, 2001 1/ (In percent of member countries responding the Survey in each category) Exchange rate regimes 2/ Developing and Transition Economies Total Emerging Markets Other No country-specific currency -- 100 100 CAEMC 4/ -- 100 100 Other -- 100 100 Country-specific currency 82 89 85 Currency board 100 100 100 Conventional fixed pegs against a single currency 100 75 84 Conventional fixed pegs against a composite 67 80 75 Pegs with horizontal bands within a cooperative arrangement -- -- -- Pegs with horizontal bands within a Fund supported program -- 100 100 Crawling pegs 100 100 100 Exchange rates within crawling bands 80 100 86 Managed floating, no preannounced path for exchange rate 87 91 88 Independently floating 64 100 79 Total 82 89 86 Memo item: No answer available 0 2 1 Source: IMF, 2001 Survey on Foreign Exchange Market Organization. 1/ The 2001 Survey on Foreign Exchange Market Organization was sent to country authorities in all developing and transition economies on October 2001. Ninety answers were received by March 2002. Table 1 shows the list of respondents. 2/ Follows the IMF's de facto exchange rate regime classification as published in the IMF's International Financial Statistics. 3/ Corresponds to the Fund member developing and transition countries considered as emerging markets in the Fund's quarterly publication "Emerging Market Financing: A Quarterly Report on Developments and Prospects". 4/ The Central African Economic and Monetary Community (CAEMC) is itself a conventional fixed peg arrangement. -- stands for not applicable, zero, or negligible amount. - 40 - APPENDIX Table 12. Electronic Broking Systems in Developing and Transition Economies, 2001 EBS Reuters Systems Central Bank Platform Private Sector Platform Brazil Chile China, Mainland Costa Rica Czech Republic Guatemala Hungary Israel Kazakhstan Korea Mexico Peru Philippines Poland Singapore Slovak Republic South Africa Uruguay Source: IMF, 2001 Survey on Foreign Exchange Market Organization. - 41 - APPENDIX Table 13. Sources of Variables Subject to Cluster Analysis, 2001 Download 341.94 Kb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
|