Hubbry Logo
DevaluationDevaluationMain
Open search
Devaluation
Community hub
Devaluation
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Devaluation
Devaluation
Devaluation
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Foreign exchange
Exchange rates
Markets
Assets
Historical agreements
See also

In macroeconomics and modern monetary policy, a devaluation is an official lowering of the value of a country's currency within a fixed exchange-rate system, in which a monetary authority formally sets a lower exchange rate of the national currency in relation to a foreign reference currency or currency basket. The opposite of devaluation, a change in the exchange rate making the domestic currency more expensive, is called a revaluation. A monetary authority (e.g., a central bank) maintains a fixed value of its currency by being ready to buy or sell foreign currency with the domestic currency at a stated rate; a devaluation is an indication that the monetary authority will buy and sell foreign currency at a lower rate.

However, under a floating exchange rate system (in which exchange rates are determined by market forces acting on the foreign exchange market, and not by government or central bank policy actions), a decrease in a currency's value relative to other major currency benchmarks is instead called depreciation; likewise, an increase in the currency's value is called appreciation.

Related but distinct concepts include inflation, which is a market-determined decline in the value of the currency in terms of goods and services (related to its purchasing power). Altering the face value of a currency without reducing its exchange rate is a redenomination, not a devaluation or revaluation.

Historical usage

[edit]

Devaluation is most often used in a situation where a currency has a defined value relative to the baseline. Historically, early currencies were typically coins, struck from gold or silver by an issuing authority, which certified the weight and purity of the precious metal. A government in need of money and short on precious metals might decrease the weight or purity of the coins without any announcement, or else decree that the new coins have equal value to the old, thus devaluing the currency. Later, with the issuing of paper currency as opposed to coins, governments decreed them to be redeemable for gold or silver (a gold standard). Again, a government short on gold or silver might devalue by decreeing a reduction in the currency's redemption value, reducing the value of everyone's holdings.

Causes

[edit]

Fixed exchange rates are usually maintained by a combination of legally enforced capital controls and the central bank standing ready to purchase or sell domestic currency in exchange for foreign currency.[citation needed] Under fixed exchange rates, persistent capital outflows or trade deficits will involve the central bank using its foreign exchange reserves to buy domestic currency, to prop up demand for the domestic currency and thus to prop up its value. However, this activity is limited by the amount of foreign currency reserves the central bank owns; the prospect of running out of these reserves and having to abandon this process may lead a central bank to devalue its currency in order to stop the foreign currency outflows.

In an open market, the perception that a devaluation is imminent may lead speculators to sell the currency in exchange for the country's foreign reserves, increasing pressure on the issuing country to make an actual devaluation. When speculators buy out all of the foreign reserves, a balance of payments crisis occurs. Economists Paul Krugman and Maurice Obstfeld present a theoretical model in which they state that the balance of payments crisis occurs when the real exchange rate (exchange rate adjusted for relative price differences between countries) is equal to the nominal exchange rate (the stated rate).[1] In practice, the onset of crisis has typically occurred after the real exchange rate has depreciated below the nominal rate. The reason for this is that speculators do not have perfect information; they sometimes find out that a country is low on foreign reserves well after the real exchange rate has fallen. In these circumstances, the currency value will fall very far very rapidly. This is what occurred during the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico.

Economic implications

[edit]

There are significant economic consequences for the country that devalues its currency to address its economic problems. A devaluation in the exchange rate lowers the value of the domestic currency in relation to all other countries, most significantly with its major trading partners. It can assist the domestic economy by making exports less expensive, enabling exporters to more easily compete in the foreign markets. It also makes imports more expensive, providing a disincentive for domestic consumers to purchase imported goods, leading to lower levels of imports (which can benefit domestic producers),[2] but which reduces the real income of consumers.[3] Devaluation tends to improve a country's balance of trade (exports minus imports) by improving the competitiveness of domestic goods in foreign markets while making foreign goods less competitive in the domestic market by becoming more expensive. The combined effect will be to reduce or eliminate the previous net outflow of foreign currency reserves from the central bank, so if the devaluation has been to a great enough extent the new exchange rate will be maintainable without foreign currency reserves being depleted any further. However, the devaluation increases the prices of imported goods in the domestic economy, thereby fueling inflation.[2] This, in turn, increases the costs in the domestic economy, including demands for wage increases, all of which eventually flow into exported goods. These dilute the initial economic boost from the devaluation itself. Also, to combat inflation, the central bank would increase interest rates, hitting economic growth.[2] A devaluation could also result in an outflow of capital and economic instability.[2] In addition, a domestic devaluation merely shifts the economic problem to the country's major trading partners, which may take counter-measures to offset the impact on their economy arising out of a loss of trade income arising from the initial devaluation.

Devaluations in modern economies

[edit]

UK economy

[edit]

1949 devaluation

[edit]

At the outbreak of World War II, in order to stabilise sterling, the pound sterling was pegged to the United States dollar at the rate of $4.03 with exchange controls restricting convertibility volumes. This rate was confirmed by the Bretton Woods agreements of 1944.[4]

After the war, US Lend-Lease funding, which had helped finance the UK's high level of wartime expenditure, abruptly ended and the Anglo-American loan was conditional upon progress towards sterling becoming fully convertible into US dollars, thereby aiding US trade.[5] In July 1947, sterling became convertible but the resultant drain on the UK's foreign exchange reserves of US dollars was such that 7 weeks later, convertibility was suspended, rationing tightened and expenditure cuts made.[6] The exchange rate reverted to its pre-convertibility level, a devaluation being avoided by the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Stafford Cripps, choking off consumption by increasing taxes in 1947.

By 1949, in part due to a dock strike, the pressure on UK reserves supporting the fixed exchange rate mounted again at a time when Cripps was seriously ill and recuperating in Switzerland.[7][8] Prime Minister Clement Attlee delegated a decision on how to respond to three young ministers whose jobs included economic portfolios, namely Hugh Gaitskell, Harold Wilson and Douglas Jay, who collectively recommended devaluation.[9] Wilson was despatched with a letter from Attlee to tell Cripps of their decision, expecting that the Chancellor would object, which he did not.[10] On 18 September 1949, the exchange rate was reduced from $4.03 to $2.80 and a series of supporting public expenditure cuts imposed soon afterwards.[4][8]

1967 devaluation

[edit]

When the Labour Government of Prime Minister Harold Wilson came to power in 1964, the new administration inherited an economy in a more precarious state than expected with the estimated balance of payments deficit for the year amounting to £800 million, twice as high as Wilson had predicted during the election campaign.[11] Wilson was opposed to devaluation, in part due to the bad memories of the 1949 devaluation and its negative impact on the Attlee government, but also because he had repeatedly asserted that Labour was not the party of devaluation.[12] Devaluation was avoided by a combination of tariffs and raising $3bn from foreign central banks.[13]

By 1966, pressure on sterling was intensifying, due in part to the seamen's strike, and the case for devaluation being articulated in the higher echelons of government, not least by the deputy prime minister George Brown.[14] Wilson resisted and eventually pushed through a series of deflationary measures in lieu of devaluation including a 6 month wage freeze.[15][16]

After a brief period in which the deflationary measures relieved sterling, pressure mounted again in 1967 as a consequence of the Six-Day War, the Arab oil embargo and a dock strike.[17] After failing to secure a bail-out from the Americans or the French, a devaluation from US$2.80 to US$2.40 took effect on 18 November 1967.[18][16] In a broadcast to the nation the following day, Wilson said, "Devaluation does not mean that the value of the pound in the pocket in the hands of the ... British housewife .. is cut correspondingly. It does not mean that the pound in the pocket is worth 14% less to us now than it was." This wording is often misquoted as "the pound in your pocket has not been devalued"m[19][20] Nevertheless the devaluation forced James Callaghan to resign as Chancellor of the Exchequer, making way for Roy Jenkins.[21]

Other economies

[edit]

The People's Bank of China devalued the renminbi twice within two days by 1.9% and 1% in July 2015 in response to slowing economic growth, leading to the 2015–2016 Chinese stock market turbulence. Although the devaluation was welcomed by the International Monetary Fund, it led the United States Department of the Treasury to label China as a currency manipulator in 2019.[22][23][24] On 5 August 2019, China devalued its currency in response to the imposition of trade tariffs by the United States against China.[2]

India devalued the Indian rupee by 35% in 1966.[25]

Mexico devalued the Mexican peso against the United States dollar in 1994 in preparation for the North American Free Trade Agreement, leading to the Mexican peso crisis.

On January 11, 1994, France decided to devaluate the CFA franc in 14 African countries in Central Africa and West Africa.[26]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Devaluation

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Devaluation is the deliberate downward adjustment of a country's official currency relative to foreign currencies, , or a standard basket, typically implemented by monetary authorities in fixed or pegged regimes to address balance-of-payments imbalances or stimulate economic activity. Unlike market-driven in floating regimes, devaluation involves direct policy intervention, such as altering the pegged rate, and is often a response to persistent current account deficits, overvalued currencies, or speculative pressures that threaten reserves. Proponents argue it enhances export competitiveness by making domestic goods cheaper abroad and discourages imports, potentially improving the trade balance through the J-curve effect, where initial deterioration precedes longer-term gains. However, reveals mixed outcomes: short-term contractionary impacts are common due to higher import costs fueling and reducing real , particularly in economies reliant on imported inputs or dollar-denominated , while long-run growth effects depend on factors like initial levels and institutional quality, with neutral or positive results in some cases but persistent harm to output in others. Historically, devaluations have featured prominently in crises, such as the widespread actions during the 1930s that aided recovery in countries like the and by restoring competitiveness after constraints, though they risked retaliatory "currency wars" among trading partners. In developing nations, repeated devaluations—evident in Latin American cases from the onward—have often exacerbated burdens and inequality without reliably spurring sustained growth, underscoring the policy's double-edged nature amid structural vulnerabilities.

Definition and Conceptual Framework

Core Definition and Distinctions from Depreciation

Devaluation refers to the deliberate downward adjustment of a country's relative to a foreign , , or basket of currencies, enacted by monetary authorities in a fixed or pegged . This policy action reduces the domestic 's value to address persistent balance-of-payments deficits, boost export competitiveness, or counteract overvaluation stemming from inflationary pressures or structural rigidities. Unlike market-driven fluctuations, devaluation involves an explicit announcement or legislative change to the pegged rate, often requiring intervention to defend the new parity through foreign or capital controls. In contrast, depreciation denotes a spontaneous decline in a currency's under a system, driven by supply-demand imbalances such as deficits, investor sentiment shifts, or differentials rather than official . While both phenomena lower a currency's external , devaluation is a unilateral decision confined to non-flexible regimes, potentially triggering immediate challenges or speculative attacks if perceived as a sign of weakness. Depreciation, however, reflects decentralized market verdicts and can self-correct through or responses like monetary tightening, without altering the official rate framework. The distinction underscores causal mechanisms: devaluation stems from discretion amid rigid commitments, whereas depreciation arises from flexible , with empirical studies showing devaluations often amplifying short-term volatility in fixed systems due to anchored expectations.

Role in Fixed vs. Floating Exchange Rate Regimes

Devaluation refers to the deliberate reduction in the official value of a domestic relative to a foreign or basket of currencies, executed by monetary authorities within a fixed where the rate is pegged and defended through interventions such as foreign reserve sales or purchases. This contrasts with regimes, where values fluctuate according to market without official pegs, rendering devaluation inapplicable; instead, downward movements are termed and occur endogenously via flows, capital movements, or rather than policy fiat. In fixed regimes, devaluation serves as a corrective mechanism to address persistent overvaluation, which arises from factors like inflationary pressures exceeding those of trading partners or structural current account deficits, allowing governments to restore export competitiveness and curb import without abandoning the peg entirely. Within fixed exchange rate systems, devaluation plays a pivotal role in macroeconomic stabilization by enabling abrupt adjustments to external imbalances that continuous intervention might otherwise exhaust reserves to maintain, as seen in historical cases like the British pound's 14.3% devaluation against the U.S. dollar on November 18, 1967, which aimed to alleviate a balance-of-payments crisis amid declining reserves. However, such actions carry risks of eroding policy credibility and inviting speculative attacks, potentially precipitating crises if anticipated, as evidenced by the European Exchange Rate Mechanism's 1992-1993 breakdowns where forced devaluations or floats followed unsustainable pegs. Proponents argue it facilitates quicker re-equilibration than gradual floating adjustments, particularly in economies with nominal rigidities, though empirical studies indicate short-term output gains often diminish if not paired with fiscal reforms, highlighting the causal link between devaluation and subsequent pass-through via higher import costs. In floating regimes, the absence of devaluation underscores a reliance on market-driven to fulfill analogous roles, where flexibility automatically absorbs shocks—such as terms-of-trade deteriorations—by depreciating to boost net exports without discretionary intervention, thereby reducing the need for reserve buffers but introducing volatility that fixed systems suppress. Central banks in floating systems may still influence rates through sterilized interventions or policies, but these do not constitute devaluation, as the rate remains unbound by a peg; for instance, post-1973 major economies like the and have experienced depreciations averaging 10-20% in response to deficits without official devaluations, demonstrating how floating mitigates overvaluation risks inherent to fixed pegs. This regime choice reflects a : fixed systems leverage devaluation for controlled corrections but heighten vulnerability from misaligned pegs, while floating prioritizes adjustment at the cost of predictability.

Mechanisms and Implementation

Policy Tools for Devaluation

In fixed exchange rate regimes, the primary policy tool for devaluation is the deliberate adjustment of the official parity rate by the or monetary authority, setting a lower fixed value for the domestic currency relative to a foreign anchor currency, , or . This unilateral announcement resets the to a depreciated level, aiming to restore competitiveness without relying on market forces inherent to floating regimes. For instance, under the until 1971, member countries periodically devalued by altering their dollar peg, requiring IMF approval for changes exceeding 10% to maintain system stability. To implement and defend the new rate, central banks often employ interventions, selling foreign reserves to absorb excess domestic currency demand and prevent immediate reversal. Unsterilized interventions expand supply, reinforcing the devaluation's expansionary effects, while sterilized ones neutralize domestic liquidity impacts to focus solely on signaling. Capital controls may accompany this, restricting outflows to preserve reserves; for example, post-1997 Asian devaluations in countries like involved temporary controls to support the adjusted peg. Devaluation is frequently bundled with complementary monetary and fiscal measures for credibility and sustainability. Central banks may loosen after the rate change—increasing base money via operations or reductions—to counteract potential deflationary pressures from imported goods becoming cheaper. Fiscal tightening, such as expenditure cuts or hikes, can signal commitment to low inflation, reducing against the ; IMF-supported programs often condition devaluations on such reforms, as seen in Argentina's 2002 peso devaluation linked to to rebuild reserves. In crawling peg variants, gradual devaluation occurs through pre-announced mini-adjustments, minimizing shocks while allowing controlled . These tools differ from depreciation in floating regimes, where devaluation requires no official reset but emerges from policy-induced market pressures like cuts. Empirical data from IMF analyses show that successful devaluations hinge on reserve adequacy—countries with reserves covering at least three months of imports sustain new rates longer, avoiding reversals. However, over-reliance on devaluation without structural adjustments risks inflation spirals, as evidenced by repeated Latin American episodes in the where initial export boosts eroded due to loose post-devaluation policies.

Historical Evolution of Devaluation Techniques

Currency debasement, an early precursor to formal devaluation techniques, involved governments reducing the content in while preserving their nominal , thereby diluting and effectively devaluing the currency relative to goods and other monies. This method originated in ancient civilizations, including the where emperors like in 64 AD lowered silver purity in the from 100% to about 90%, and persisted through medieval and . Techniques included alloying with base metals, clipping edges to collect shavings, or reducing weight, as practiced in England's (1542–1551) under and , which saw silver content drop by up to 83% in some issues to finance wars and deficits, leading to rates exceeding 200% over the period. The emergence of fixed metallic standards in the shifted techniques toward maintaining parities rather than frequent adjustments, with devaluation entailing suspension of convertibility or redefinition of mint ratios, though such actions were rare due to credibility costs. The marked a pivotal evolution, as disruptions from and the prompted widespread abandonment of the gold standard, enabling devaluations via temporary floats or new pegs at lower values. Between 1930 and 1936, over 20 countries, including the on September 21, 1931 (pound depreciated ~25% against gold), and the in 1933 (dollar devalued 40% via the Gold Reserve Act), employed these methods to boost exports and combat , often unilaterally despite emerging norms against competitive devaluations. Under the (1944–1971), devaluation techniques formalized into adjustable pegs, where member countries maintained exchange rates within ±1% bands against the U.S. dollar (itself convertible to at $35 per ounce), with adjustments permitted for "fundamental disequilibrium" via IMF consultation and approval to prevent beggar-thy-neighbor policies. Notable implementations included the British pound's 30% devaluation in and 14% in , achieved by redefining the official parity and defending it through reserve drawdowns and borrowing, alongside temporary import restrictions. This multilateral framework contrasted with 1930s measures by emphasizing coordination and scrutiny. Following the system's 1973 collapse amid U.S. dollar devaluations (e.g., 10% in 1971 via ) and shifts to floating rates, surviving fixed or pegged regimes evolved techniques like crawling pegs—small, frequent downward adjustments (e.g., 2–3% monthly)—and managed bands, often combined with interventions, sterilization of reserve losses, and capital controls to engineer gradual devaluations without abrupt shocks. Examples include China's post-2005 managed float against a with periodic revaluations/devaluations, and Latin American countries in the 1980s–1990s using mini-devaluations within crawling bands before adopting dollarization or . These methods prioritize preemptive adjustments over large discrete changes to mitigate speculative attacks, reflecting lessons from prior crises on reserve adequacy and policy credibility.

Underlying Causes

Macroeconomic Imbalances as Triggers

Macroeconomic imbalances, particularly persistent current account deficits, frequently trigger devaluation in fixed exchange rate systems by eroding and undermining external sustainability. When a country's imports persistently exceed exports, it generates a surplus demand for foreign currency to finance the gap, drawing down reserves until they approach critically low levels, often below three months of import cover as a conventional threshold for . This reserve depletion intensifies on the peg, as speculators anticipate intervention limits, prompting policymakers to devalue to realign the and avert a disorderly collapse. Inflation differentials between a devaluing country and its trading partners constitute another key imbalance, leading to real overvaluation that hampers competitiveness. Higher domestic relative to partners erodes the real value of the despite a nominal peg, making domestic goods costlier abroad and widening trade gaps over time. For instance, if cumulative exceeds trading partners' by 10-20% over several years, the resulting real appreciation can reduce by equivalent margins, necessitating devaluation to restore equilibrium through a nominal adjustment that offsets the inflationary divergence. Empirical analyses confirm that such differentials, absent corrective devaluation, amplify current account deterioration, with devaluation typically aiming to achieve a 10-15% real to boost net exports sufficiently. Fiscal and monetary imbalances exacerbate these pressures by fueling and deficits, creating a vicious cycle toward devaluation. Unsustainable fiscal deficits, often financed through , generate excess domestic demand that spills into imports while inflating costs, further unbalancing the current account. In fixed regimes, this dynamic erodes reserve adequacy, as seen when public debt-to-GDP ratios surpass 60-90% alongside twin deficits, signaling to markets an impending policy shift. Devaluation then serves as a corrective mechanism to compress imports via higher relative prices and stimulate export-led adjustment, though success hinges on accompanying fiscal restraint to prevent re-inflation. Overall, these imbalances reflect fundamental misalignments in savings-investment gaps or trends, where devaluation addresses symptoms rather than roots unless paired with structural reforms.

Political and Institutional Factors

Political decisions often precipitate currency devaluation when governments prioritize short-term economic stimulus or electoral gains over long-term stability, particularly in fixed regimes where adjustments require explicit policy action. For example, leaders may devalue to enhance competitiveness and narrow deficits, as seen in historical cases where domestic political pressures outweighed international coordination efforts. Empirical analysis indicates that frequently depreciate in the aftermath of national elections, with incumbents potentially timing devaluations to mitigate economic downturns and bolster post-election recovery, as evidenced by patterns across multiple countries from 1975 to 2020. Institutional factors exacerbate vulnerability to devaluation when monetary authorities lack , enabling fiscal dominance where overrides discipline. In such environments, fixed pegs are maintained for prestige or to suppress imported but collapse under accumulated imbalances, as political authorities delay adjustments to avoid blame for resulting hardships. Weak institutional frameworks, including inadequate legal safeguards against arbitrary policy shifts, amplify this risk, particularly in developing economies where central banks serve as extensions of executive priorities rather than autonomous stabilizers. Political instability further drives devaluation by eroding foreign investor confidence, triggering capital flight and reserve depletion that render pegs untenable. Studies of developing countries reveal that abrupt leadership changes or policy reversals correlate with heightened exchange rate volatility, as markets anticipate mismanagement and demand higher risk premia. Historical precedents, such as the United Kingdom's 14% pound devaluation on November 18, 1967, under Prime Minister Harold Wilson, illustrate how governments resort to such measures amid eroding reserves and political resistance to alternative austerity paths. Similarly, the U.S. dollar devaluation in 1934, enacted via the Gold Reserve Act signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 30, raised the official gold price from $20.67 to $35 per ounce, reflecting institutional reconfiguration to prioritize domestic recovery over gold standard orthodoxy during the Great Depression. In emerging markets, recurrent devaluations, as in Argentina's 2001-2002 crisis, stem from institutional failures to enforce fiscal restraint, where populist policies inflate deficits until currency anchors break.

Theoretical and Empirical Effects

Predicted Economic Impacts from Theory

Economic theory posits that devaluation, by reducing the nominal under fixed regimes, enhances the competitiveness of domestic goods on international markets, thereby increasing volumes and reducing volumes in foreign terms, provided the Marshall-Lerner condition holds—namely, that the sum of the absolute values of the price elasticities of demand for exports and imports exceeds unity. This elasticities-based framework, rooted in partial equilibrium analysis, predicts an eventual improvement in the trade balance, as the quantity response to changes outweighs the initial adverse value effect on exports and imports. In macroeconomic models such as the Mundell-Fleming framework, devaluation under fixed exchange rates and imperfect capital mobility shifts the IS curve outward by boosting net exports, leading to higher equilibrium output and employment, assuming sticky prices and no immediate full pass-through to domestic inflation. The model further anticipates an expansionary effect on , as the intervenes to maintain the new peg, potentially increasing money supply and lowering interest rates temporarily. However, this prediction hinges on sufficient export and import demand elasticities satisfying the Marshall-Lerner condition; otherwise, the trade balance may worsen initially, manifesting as the J-curve phenomenon where the current account deteriorates before improving over time due to lagged quantity adjustments. Theoretical extensions highlight potential contractionary impacts, as articulated in the contractionary devaluation hypothesis, where devaluation raises the domestic price of imported intermediates and consumer goods, eroding real money balances and if households and firms exhibit low elasticities or face balance sheet mismatches from foreign-denominated . In such scenarios, the redistribution from debtors to creditors and heightened expectations can contract real expenditure, particularly in economies with high import dependence or wage , overriding the export-led stimulus. Distributional conflicts may amplify these effects, as devaluation's terms-of-trade deterioration squeezes , reducing consumption and unless offset by gains or fiscal adjustments. Overall, standard open-economy models predict devaluation's net effect on output as context-dependent, expansionary in export-oriented economies with flexible supply responses but potentially recessionary where structural rigidities dominate, underscoring the interplay between relative price signals and domestic absorption channels.

Empirical Evidence on Outcomes

Empirical studies on devaluation reveal mixed outcomes, with short-term contractions in output frequently observed in developing economies, contrasting theoretical predictions of expansionary effects through improved competitiveness. A seminal of 39 devaluation episodes across developing countries from 1958 to 1981 found that real GDP growth declined by an average of 1.4 percentage points in the year following devaluation, attributing this to increased costs, rigidities, and effects from dollar-denominated . This contractionary devaluation has garnered support in subsequent research, particularly for economies with high and limited supply elasticity, where a 10% devaluation correlates with a 0.5-2% drop in output in the short run. On trade balances, devaluations often exhibit a J-curve pattern: an initial deterioration due to higher prices in domestic currency terms, followed by improvement as volumes rise. Quarterly data from large devaluation events in emerging markets show exports increasing by 5-10% within 1-2 years post-devaluation, driven by price competitiveness, though net trade balance gains are muted if import dependence for inputs remains high. Empirical meta-analyses confirm that while devaluation boosts growth by 0.8-1.5% per 10% in the medium term, the overall current account adjustment is smaller in inelastic economies. Inflationary pressures consistently rise post-devaluation, as pass-through from depreciated import prices elevates domestic costs; cross-country regressions indicate a 10% devaluation raises CPI inflation by 2-4% in the first year, with persistence in economies lacking credible monetary anchors. In developing contexts, this effect compounds contractionary impulses via reduced and consumption, though long-run growth may recover if structural reforms accompany the policy. Recent regime-based comparisons, distinguishing fixed-peg devaluations from floating depreciations, suggest peg-breakers experience sharper output drops (up to 3-5% GDP) due to loss and capital outflows, underscoring institutional factors in outcomes. Employment effects mirror output dynamics, with short-term job losses in import-competing and debt-burdened sectors outweighing gains in tradables; from Latin American devaluations in the 1980s-1990s show rising 1-3 percentage points initially, though employment rebounds after 18-24 months if competitiveness endures. Overall, while devaluations can stabilize external imbalances over 2-3 years, highlights frequent short-run costs, particularly in supply-constrained economies, challenging orthodox models and emphasizing preconditions like fiscal discipline for positive net effects.

Historical Context

Early Historical Instances

In , deliberate of served as an early form of devaluation, with Emperor initiating significant reductions in the silver content of the coin in AD 64 to fund military campaigns and infrastructure projects following the . The , originally nearly pure silver weighing about 3.9 grams of fine silver, was reduced to roughly 3.4 grams of pure silver by alloying with , marking a de facto 12-15% devaluation in intrinsic value while maintaining nominal face value. This policy set a precedent for subsequent emperors; for instance, in AD 215 introduced the , a double with only marginally more silver than a single , further eroding trust and contributing to inflationary spirals by the , when silver content approached negligible levels. Such measures provided short-term fiscal but undermined the 's role as a , exacerbating economic pressures amid empire-wide expenditures. During the medieval period in , rulers frequently debased coinage amid fiscal crises like wars and famines, effectively devaluing currencies tied to precious metal standards. In and during the (1337-1453), monarchs such as reduced silver and weight in coins like the groat and noble to military efforts, with debasements reaching 20-30% in some issues to increase revenue. These actions often triggered domestic and frictions, as foreign merchants discounted the altered coins, prompting countermeasures like coin assays and tariffs. In , city-states including and adjusted the silver-gold mint ratios and debased small change during the 13th-14th centuries' commercial expansion, where rising money demand outpaced metal supplies, leading to episodic devaluations that fueled urban but also periodic monetary instability. A stark early modern example unfolded in with Henry VIII's , launched in 1542 amid costs from wars against and , as well as the . The policy progressively lowered the silver content in sterling coins from 92.5% purity (10 ounces fine silver per tower pound) to 83% in 1544, then 50% by 1546, and as low as 25-30% by 1551, while the crown minted vast quantities of base coins, expanding the money supply by over 200%. Intended to generate revenue through —estimated at £1.2 million over the decade—this caused rapid of 75% by some measures, eroded public confidence (evidenced by widespread coin clipping and ), and diminished 's export competitiveness until Elizabeth I's 1560 recoinage restored standards at a of £200,000 to the treasury. Parallel debasements in under Francis I and Henry II during the 1540s-1560s similarly reduced alloy standards to fund , highlighting a pattern where sovereigns prioritized immediate fiscal needs over long-term monetary stability.

20th-Century Developments Under Fixed Regimes

Under the interwar , which many countries restored in the 1920s at pre-World War I parities, the faced mounting pressures from gold outflows, banking crises, and deflationary strains during the . On September 21, 1931, Britain suspended convertibility of the into gold, leading to an immediate devaluation from its $4.86 parity to around $3.40, a roughly 30% decline that relieved domestic monetary constraints but sparked international retaliation. This action prompted rapid devaluations by trading partners, including and by late 1931, as nations sought to protect exports and reserves, fostering a competitive depreciation cycle that undermined the fixed regime's stability without coordinated policy responses. The Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944 introduced a more structured , pegging currencies to the US dollar (itself convertible to gold at $35 per ounce) with provisions for adjustable par values in cases of "fundamental disequilibrium," subject to consultation. This framework aimed to prevent abrupt suspensions like but still permitted devaluations amid postwar reconstruction challenges, such as reconstruction costs and trade imbalances. In September 1949, the devalued the pound by 30.25% from $4.03 to $2.80, addressing chronic deficits and import pressures, though it required scant IMF advance notice and influenced subsequent adjustments by countries like and . Persistent imbalances continued to test the system into the , with the experiencing another sterling crisis culminating in the , , devaluation of 14.3% from $2.80 to $2.40, driven by uncompetitive exports, domestic , and reserve drains despite prior measures. , facing similar competitiveness issues, devalued the multiple times, including a 17.55% adjustment in 1958 tied to efforts and an 11.1% cut in August 1969 under President Pompidou to counter speculative attacks and support growth. These adjustments highlighted the regime's reliance on occasional realignments to sustain pegs, yet they often amplified speculative pressures and exposed underlying asymmetries, such as the dollar's growing reserve role, foreshadowing broader systemic strains.

Modern Applications and Case Studies

Devaluations in Developed Economies

In the post-World War II era, developed economies occasionally resorted to currency devaluation under fixed exchange rate regimes to address persistent balance-of-payments deficits and competitiveness losses, though such measures became rarer after the widespread adoption of floating rates in the 1970s. The United Kingdom's 1967 devaluation of the pound sterling exemplifies this approach, occurring amid chronic trade imbalances and speculative pressures that depleted foreign reserves. On November 18, 1967, Prime Minister Harold Wilson announced a 14.3% devaluation, shifting the parity from $2.80 to $2.40 per pound, after the Bank of England spent over $2 billion defending the rate in preceding months. This move aimed to boost exports by making British goods cheaper abroad while curbing imports, but it initially fueled domestic inflation as import prices rose by approximately 10-12%, contributing to wage-price spirals and a 3-4% increase in consumer prices within the first year. Empirical data showed mixed short-term results: the current account surplus improved from -0.5% of GDP in 1967 to +1.2% by 1969, supporting export growth, yet overall economic recovery lagged due to accompanying austerity measures and labor market rigidities. The 1992 European Monetary System (EMS) crisis highlighted devaluations in interconnected pegged s among developed European nations, triggered by divergent economic conditions and speculative attacks following German reunification's inflationary pressures. Italy devalued the lira by 7% against other EMS currencies on September 13, 1992, widening its fluctuation band before suspending participation four days later, as high (over 100% of GDP) and fiscal deficits eroded credibility. , maintaining a peg to the (ECU), faced similar assaults; after depleting reserves and raising interest rates to 500% overnight on September 16, the Riksbank allowed the krona to float on November 19, resulting in a 20% depreciation against the Deutschmark within months. The United Kingdom's expulsion from the EMS on September 16—known as —led to an immediate 15% sterling drop against the Deutschmark, with the pound falling from 2.95 to 2.50 Deutschmarks in days, costing the £3.3 billion in failed interventions. Post-devaluation, these economies experienced export-led recoveries: Italy's trade balance swung to surplus by 1994, 's GDP growth rebounded to 2.5% in 1994 after a , and the UK's peaked but then declined amid 4% annual export volume growth through 1994, underscoring devaluation's role in restoring external competitiveness despite transitional output costs. These instances reveal devaluation's causal mechanism in developed contexts: under fixed regimes, overvaluation sustains deficits until reserves exhaust, forcing adjustment that reallocates resources toward tradables via relative price changes, though institutional factors like union power or can amplify contractionary effects. Unlike emerging markets, developed economies benefited from deeper financial markets and credibility, mitigating contagion, but outcomes depended on complementary reforms; unaddressed structural issues, as in the UK's pre-1967 industrial decline, limited J-curve improvements in balances. Since the EMS upheavals, deliberate devaluations have been scarce in developed economies, with interventions favoring managed floats over peg abandonment, reflecting lessons on the sustainability costs of rigid bands amid asymmetric shocks.

Devaluations in Emerging and Developing Economies

In emerging and developing economies, currency devaluations frequently occur amid balance-of-payments crises, often triggered by unsustainable fixed pegs, large current account deficits, and heavy reliance on short-term foreign-denominated . These economies, characterized by shallower financial markets and higher dollarization, experience amplified effects from devaluation, including balance sheet mismatches that erode corporate and solvency. Empirical analyses indicate that nominal depreciations in such contexts typically raise the real burden by 10-20% or more, exacerbating fiscal strains and prompting capital outflows. The 1994 Mexican peso crisis exemplifies these dynamics: on December 20, Mexico devalued the peso by 15% against the U.S. dollar after depleting foreign reserves while maintaining a , leading to a full float and a subsequent 50% depreciation by March 1995. This triggered a sharp contraction, with GDP falling 6.9% in 1995, inflation surging to 52%, and banking sector distress requiring government recapitalization equivalent to 20% of GDP. Recovery ensued by 1996, aided by IMF and U.S. support totaling $50 billion, export growth, and structural reforms, though the episode highlighted vulnerabilities from tesobonos—short-term dollar-linked securities—and prompted contagion to other Latin American markets. Similarly, the began with 's baht devaluation on July 2, after speculative attacks overwhelmed defenses under a dollar peg; the currency depreciated 15-20% initially, spreading to , where the rupiah lost over 80% of its value by January 1998, and . Affected economies saw GDP contractions of 5-13% in 1998, driven by debt overhang—external liabilities exceeded 100% of GDP in and —and non-performing loans surging to 30-50% of banking assets. IMF programs disbursed $36 billion to , , and Korea, conditional on fiscal tightening and financial restructuring, which facilitated rebounds by 1999, with export competitiveness improving via real effective adjustments of 20-40%. However, social costs included spikes to 7-20% and poverty increases, underscoring contractionary devaluation effects in import-dependent, crony-capitalism-prone systems. Argentina's 2001 devaluation marked the collapse of its regime, pegged at 1:1 to the dollar since 1991; abandonment on , 2002, resulted in a 75% peso within months, alongside default on $141 billion in sovereign debt. GDP plummeted 11% in 2002, cumulative decline reaching 28% from 1998-2002, with hitting 41% and affecting over 50% of the population. While exports rose 20% in dollar terms post-devaluation, aiding a V-shaped recovery to 9% growth by 2003, persistent fiscal indiscipline and delays prolonged instability, illustrating how rigid pegs delay adjustments but amplify crisis severity when broken. Cross-country evidence from emerging markets shows devaluations often yield mixed outcomes: short-term output losses averaging 2-5% of GDP due to pass-through to imported inputs and servicing costs, yet potential long-term gains if accompanied by credible reforms to enhance supply responses. In low-credibility environments, however, inflationary spirals and reduced —evident in 20-30% drops in FDI during crises—dominate, with studies confirming higher pass-through to prices (up to 50-70%) compared to advanced economies.

Controversies and Policy Debates

Debates on Effectiveness and Contractionary Effects

The effectiveness of currency devaluation remains a contentious issue in debates, with traditional Keynesian and Mundell-Fleming models predicting expansionary effects through improved competitiveness and reduced volumes, thereby boosting net exports and . However, empirical analyses frequently reveal short-term contractionary outcomes, particularly in developing economies, where devaluation can exacerbate balance sheet fragilities for firms and households with foreign-denominated , leading to reduced and consumption as real liabilities surge. Pioneering work by Krugman and Taylor (1976) formalized the contractionary devaluation hypothesis, attributing negative output effects to mechanisms such as rigid nominal wages that diminish , heightened pass-through to domestic prices, and a resultant decline in despite trade balance improvements. Empirical support for this view emerged in studies of Latin American episodes during the 1980s debt crisis, where devaluations correlated with GDP contractions averaging 2-5% in the initial year, driven by import-dependent and limited export elasticities. Conversely, Edwards (1986) analyzed from 39 developing countries and found devaluations to be contractionary in the first year (with output falling by about 1-2%), expansionary in the second (gains of 1-3%), and neutral over longer horizons, suggesting timing and accompanying fiscal-monetary policies as pivotal moderators. More recent cross-country evidence reinforces the context-dependency of outcomes: a study of 1990s-2010s depreciations in emerging markets indicated no long-run contractionary bias, with real undervaluation eventually fostering output growth via productivity gains, but short-run contractions in over half of cases linked to high external debt-to-GDP ratios exceeding 50%. In contrast, IMF-linked research on Asian devaluations (e.g., 1997, 1998) highlighted contractionary dominance, with GDP drops of 10-15% attributed to sudden stops in capital inflows and amplified domestic credit contractions, challenging optimistic elasticities assumptions in trade models. These findings underscore that devaluation's net impact hinges on initial overvaluation severity, export supply responsiveness (often lagging 1-2 years), and policy credibility, with contractionary risks amplified in economies reliant on imported inputs or facing wage . Debates persist over measurement challenges, such as distinguishing devaluation from concurrent shocks (e.g., commodity price collapses), with models in contexts showing mixed long-run growth effects in only 9 of 23 countries, implying frequent neutrality rather than robust expansion. Critics of contractionary narratives, including Calvo and Reinhart (2002), argue that observed recessions often stem from pre-existing imbalances rather than devaluation per se, advocating for complementary structural reforms to harness potential benefits. Overall, while long-run expansionary potential exists under favorable conditions, the preponderance of evidence from developing economies points to prevalent short-term contractionary risks, informing cautious policy application.

International Ramifications and Alternatives

Devaluation often triggers retaliatory actions from trading partners, fostering competitive devaluations that can escalate into and disrupt global trade flows. During the , more than 50 countries pursued devaluations in the early , contributing to a beggar-thy-neighbor dynamic that intensified economic contraction worldwide by eroding mutual export markets. Empirical analysis of 14 industrialized economies from 1929 to 1939 indicates that while devaluations aided individual recoveries in some cases, widespread adoption amplified international tensions without proportionally boosting aggregate trade volumes. On balance, devaluation enhances the exporting country's competitiveness but imposes asymmetric costs on importers, raising their input prices and potentially slowing global demand if multiple economies devalue simultaneously. An study estimates that a 10% devaluation typically increases the devaluing nation's exports by about 1.5% of GDP, yet this gain often materializes through reduced import shares in partner markets, straining bilateral relations. For emerging markets with substantial denominated in foreign currencies, devaluation amplifies repayment burdens in local terms, heightening default risks and prompting creditor concerns over spillover effects to international . Such ramifications underscore the IMF's caution that devaluations rarely resolve structural imbalances and may exacerbate global uncertainty, particularly under fixed regimes where abrupt adjustments signal policy credibility issues. In interconnected economies, uncoordinated devaluations can propagate inflationary pressures or deflationary spirals abroad, as seen in historical episodes where initial gains were offset by retaliatory tariffs or reduced foreign investment. Alternatives to devaluation emphasize internal adjustments or regime shifts to mitigate international frictions. Internal devaluation, involving domestic wage and price reductions, preserves nominal exchange rates while restoring competitiveness, as implemented in during the 2008-2011 crisis, where unit labor costs fell by over 20% without currency alteration, aiding export recovery without provoking neighbors. Transitioning to floating exchange rates permits gradual market-driven depreciations, avoiding discrete shocks and the stigma of deliberate policy moves, a path adopted by many economies post-Bretton Woods to enhance adjustment flexibility. Fiscal consolidation and structural reforms offer complementary avenues, targeting productivity gains and demand-side imbalances rather than manipulation; for instance, subsidies or tariffs can mimic devaluation effects domestically but risk disputes if deemed protectionist. Central banks under fixed regimes may alternatively deploy foreign reserve interventions or elevated interest rates to defend pegs temporarily, though these measures deplete reserves and attract short-term capital without addressing root causes. The IMF advocates bundled approaches, combining limited devaluation with multilateral coordination to curb beggar-thy-neighbor outcomes, as uncoordinated actions historically prolonged downturns.

References

  1. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/devaluation.asp
  2. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/devaluation/
  3. https://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/center/econed/g_how.htm
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/currency-devaluation
  5. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/revista-de-historia-economica-journal-of-iberian-and-latin-american-economic-history/article/short-and-longrun-effects-of-devaluations-evidence-from-argentina/1DC87D61FA56CABC31F519EEBAA94E30
  6. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311886.2024.2319373
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165176599000889
  8. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c6875/c6875.pdf
  9. https://ies.princeton.edu/pdf/E86.pdf
  10. https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/355/trade/devaluation-and-depreciation-definition/
  11. https://www.omfif.org/2024/07/dont-confuse-dollar-depreciation-with-devaluation/
  12. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/macroeconomics/difference-between-devaluation-and-depreciation/
  13. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2008/03/pdf/basics.pdf
  14. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2009/12/ghosh.htm
  15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0164070418300594
  16. https://www.investopedia.com/trading/floating-rate-vs-fixed-rate/
  17. https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/policy-and-theory-of-international-finance/s15-policy-effects-with-fixed-exch.html
  18. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2008/06/pdf/ghosh.pdf
  19. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2024/10/10/when-foreign-exchange-intervention-can-best-help-countries-navigate-shocks
  20. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/conferences/shared/pdf/20191114_CEPR/Born.pdf
  21. https://wp.peio.me/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Conf1_Dreher.Walter_IMF.Effects.Currency.Crises.pdf
  22. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp1574.pdf
  23. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2024/07/22/financial-stability-implications-of-emerging-market-currency-developments
  24. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/21/imf-warns-currency-devaluations-will-not-fix-economic-problems.html
  25. https://aier.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/MO99.pdf
  26. https://iea.org.uk/blog/the-inexorable-lessons-of-currency-debasement/
  27. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2025/09/19/the-history-of-monetary-debasement-and-what-it-means-for-business-leaders/
  28. https://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/Sachs%2520Writing/1985/EconHistory_1985_ExchangeRatesandEconomicRecovery_Dec1985.PDF
  29. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2010/12/currency-tensions-four-lessons-from-history?lang=en
  30. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/bretton-woods-launched
  31. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/operation-and-demise-bretton-woods-system-1958-1971
  32. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2002/wp02155.pdf
  33. https://www.imfconnect.org/content/dam/imf/News%2520and%2520Generic%2520Content/GMM/Special%2520Features/ChinaFXManagement06032019.pdf
  34. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/022415/how-does-inflation-affect-exchange-rate-between-two-nations.asp
  35. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/024/1952/001/article-A003-en.xml
  36. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~jsteinsson/papers/trilemma.pdf
  37. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31279/w31279.pdf
  38. https://ies.princeton.edu/pdf/S62.pdf
  39. https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2025/origins-us-trade-deficit-and-futility-tariffs
  40. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/090215/3-reasons-why-countries-devalue-their-currency.asp
  41. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/elections-and-devaluations
  42. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/downloadpdf/journals/022/0020/001/article-A004-en.pdf
  43. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/1999/046/article-A001-en.xml
  44. https://minds.wisconsin.edu/handle/1793/85793
  45. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/06/irwin.htm
  46. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/roosevelts-gold-program
  47. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/frankel/files/wtpfrankel.cp16.p291-306.pdf
  48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261560600000358
  49. https://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/exchangerate/effects-devaluation/
  50. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=983096
  51. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w11508/w11508.pdf
  52. https://www.ipe-berlin.org/fileadmin/institut-ipe/Dokumente/Working_Papers/ipe_working_paper_240.pdf
  53. https://www.nber.org/papers/w1676
  54. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4821874_Devaluation_and_Aggregate_Economic_Activity_An_Empirical_Analysis_of_the_Contractionary_Devaluation_Issue
  55. https://publications.iadb.org/en/evaluation-contractionary-devaluation-hypothesis
  56. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/a419fcb8-1ec0-573e-9ea4-1a6aa0eca8c4
  57. https://jalalabadpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/Volume3articles/3.pdf
  58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0161893819301255
  59. https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/1998/611/ifdp611.pdf
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12166354/
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261560606001306
  62. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/decilo/0007.html
  63. https://www.gerjournal.com/article/the-effects-of-devaluation-of-currency-on-economic-growth-the-mediating-role-of-current-account-deficit
  64. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/currency-and-the-collapse-of-the-roman-empire/
  65. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230118249_4
  66. https://www.economics.utoronto.ca/munro5/CWE14Coinage.pdf
  67. https://www.historyhit.com/old-coppernose-henry-viii-and-the-great-debasement/
  68. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/economic-research/conferences/~/media/files/research/events/1985_10-24/Redish_CurrencyDepreciation.pdf
  69. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/end-gold-standard-and-beginning-recovery-great-depression
  70. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2016/06/a-short-history-of-the-british-pound/
  71. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c6867/c6867.pdf
  72. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/pound-in-your-pocket-devaluation-50-years-on/
  73. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/sixties-britain/pound-devalued/
  74. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781451971477/ch021.xml
  75. https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/1971/2/ifdp2.pdf
  76. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c6876/c6876.pdf
  77. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/currency-crises.asp
  78. https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/18582/unemployment/uk-devaluation-of-sterling-1967/
  79. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w8035/w8035.pdf
  80. https://publications.banque-france.fr/sites/default/files/medias/documents/wp793_0.pdf
  81. https://www.kansascityfed.org/documents/820/1993-Was%2520the%2520ERM%2520Crisis%2520Inevitable%253F.pdf
  82. https://ies.princeton.edu/pdf/S84.pdf
  83. https://cepr.org/system/files/publication-files/181751-the_making_of_the_european_monetary_union_30_years_since_the_erm_crisis.pdf
  84. https://www.schroders.com/en-us/us/local/insights/pound-devaluation-how-the-lessons-of-1967-apply-today/
  85. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/lessons-history-three-generations-currency-crises
  86. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2110701721000676
  87. https://www.bis.org/publ/work753.pdf
  88. https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/1996/396lead.pdf
  89. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-mexican-peso-crisis-the-foreseeable-and-the-surprise/
  90. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/asian-financial-crisis
  91. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/1998/06/imfstaff.htm
  92. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/11_argentina_kiguel.pdf
  93. https://commdocs.house.gov/committees/bank/hba77785.000/hba77785_1.HTM
  94. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9798400211263/CH007.xml
  95. https://rujec.org/article/38073/
  96. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/63401/contractionaryef00krug.pdf
  97. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036840600707266
  98. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/ifdp/some-multi-country-evidence-on-the-effects-of-real-exchange-rates-on-output.htm
  99. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1049007814000165
  100. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254351148_Currency_Devaluation_and_Output_Growth_An_Empirical_Evidence_from_OECD_Countries
  101. https://peif.conferences.wcfia.harvard.edu/file_url/216
  102. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/competitive-devaluation.asp
  103. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11698-022-00262-9
  104. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/28/imf-currency-study-shows-power-of-devaluation
  105. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372439901_GLOBAL_PEACE_DEVALUATION_AND_IMF
  106. https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/9937/what-are-the-alternatives-to-currency-devaluation
  107. https://www.piie.com/commentary/testimonies/alternative-exchange-rate-systems-and-reform-international-financial
  108. https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Sykes-Currency.pdf
  109. https://www.econweb.com/macro/international/notes.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.