This paper examines the claim that exchange rate regimes are of little salience in the transmission of global financial conditions to domestic financial and macroeconomic conditions by focusing on a sample of about forty emerging market countries over 1986 to 2013. Our findings show that exchange rate regimes do matter. The transmission of global financial shocks to domestic credit and house price growth, as well as to banking sector leverage and domestic output, is magnified under fixed exchange rate regimes relative to more flexible (though not necessarily fully flexible) exchange rate regimes.

The exchange-rate regime is often seen as constrained by the monetary policy trilemma, which imposes a stark tradeoff among exchange stability, monetary independence, and capital market openness. Yet the trilemma has not gone without challenge. Some (e.g., Others (e.g., This paper studies the coherence of international interest rates over more than 130 years. The constraints implied by the trilemma are largely borne out by history.

How big is the elasticity of substitution between goods from different countries—the Armington elasticity? Estimates of the macroelasticity between home and imported goods are often smaller than the microelasticity between foreign sources of imports. Using new, highly disaggregate U.S. production data matched to imports and simulated data from a Melitz-style model with nested CES preferences, we explore estimation techniques for the two elasticities. For between two-thirds and three-quarters of sample goods, there is no significant difference between the macro- and microelasticities, but for the rest, the microelasticity is significantly higher, even at the same level of disaggregation.