Credit Constraints and Growth in a Global Economy

Credit Constraints and Growth in a Global Economy Nicolas Coeurdacier (SciencesPo & CEPR) Stéphane Guibaud (LSE) Keyu Jin (LSE) May 2012 1/65

Motivation and stylized facts I Two of the most striking trends in the past three decades: I I Financial integration Fast growth in Emerging Asia I Accompanying trends: 1. An increase in private savings rate in Emerging Asia and a fall in private savings rate in Advanced Economies 2. Global imbalances, large current account surplus in Asia 3. A fall in the world long-term interest rate I Opposite of what standard open economy models predict. 2/65

Fast growth in emerging Asia 10 Emerging Asia and Developed Countries Growth Experience 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Real Growth Rate in Advanced Economies (5 years average) Real Growth Rate in Emerging Asia (5 years average) Real Growth Rate in the US (5 years average) Source PWT 3/65

Private savings 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005 2006 2007 Savings in Emerging Asia % of GDP Private Savings in Developed Countries % of GDP Private Savings in Emerging Asia % of GDP Private Savings in the US % of GDP 4/65

Household savings Households Savings Rate 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Advanced OECD United States China India 5/65

Investment 40 35 30 25 20 15 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005 2006 2007 2008 Invesment in Developed Countries % of GDP Investment in Emerging Asia (excluding China) % of GDP Invesment in Emerging Asia % of GDP Invesment in the US % of GDP 6/65

Global imbalances! "#$% & &! "#$% ' ( ) 7/65

Long-term interest rates 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 1986 01 01 1988 01 01 1990 01 01 1992 01 01 1994 01 01 1996 01 01 1998 01 01 2000 01 01 2002 01 01 2004 01 01 2006 01 01 2008 01 01 2010 01 01 US T Bill Nominal Rate (maturity 10 year) Mortgage Nominal Rate (Fixed Rate 30 years) Source: Saint Louis Fed 8/65

This paper I Incorporates household liquidity constraints (the extent of which is asymmetric across countries) into an open economy, general equilibrium OLG model. I Analyzes the interaction between growth and credit constraints and its impact on the global equilibrium. I We show that fast growth in Emerging Asia can generate the key trends observed in macro data. I Main finding: Asymmetric response of saving rates to a fall in world interest rate leads to greater dispersion in saving rates. 9/65

Main finding I Asymmetric credit constraints translate into di erent weights placed on borrowers vs savers across economies. I More constrained economy: greater weight on the savings of the middle-aged, less weight on the (dis)savings of the young. I A fall in world interest rate causes the young to borrow more and the middle-aged to save more (income e ect). I Di erent weights on borrowers vs savers lead to asymmetric responses of saving rates across countries. I Fall in saving rate in less constrained economy driven by the increased borrowing of the young. I Rise in saving rate in more constrained economy driven by the increased savings of the middle-aged. I We provide micro evidence on saving behavior across age groups for US and China that is broadly supportive of our model predictions. 10 / 65

Related literature I Allocation puzzle: Gourinchas and Jeanne (2009) I Investment: I Saving: I Benhima (2009), Song, Storesletten and Zilibotti (2009) I Caballero, Farhi and Gourinchas (2008) I I Mendoza, Quadrini and Rios-Rull (2009), Jeanne and Ranciere (2006), Carroll and Jeanne (2009) Corporate Saving: Benhima and Bachetta (2011), Sandri (2010) I Closed-economy setup: Jappelli and Pagano (1994) 11 / 65

Model Key ingredients I One-good model of n large open economies I OLG structure with three-period lived agents = the young borrowers, the middle-aged workers and savers, the old retired. I Borrowing constraints: the young can only borrow up to a fraction of their discounted future labor income. Asymmetry: tighter credit constraints in Asia I No uncertainty. 12 / 65

Production I Output in country i Y i t = K i t Z i t L i m,t 1 = Z i t L i m,t(k i t) where k i t K i t Z i t Li m,t I Wages and rental rates of capital denotes the capital-e ective-labor ratio. w i t = (1 )Z i t k i t, r i K,t = k i t 1. I Given capital depreciation rate, the (gross) rate of return earned between periods t 1andt is Rt i =1 + rk,t i. 13 / 65

Households I Lifetime utility of an agent born in period t in country i U i t = u(c i y,t)+ u(c i m,t+1)+ 2 u(c i o,t+2). I Isoelastic utility with i.e.s coe cient apple 1 u(c) = c1 1 1 1 1. 14 / 65

Household budget constraints I An agent born in period t faces the following sequence of budget constraints: c i y,t + a i y,t+1 = 0, c i m,t+1 + a i m,t+2 = w i t+1 + R i t+1a i y,t+1, c i o,t+2 = R i t+2a i m,t+2. I The old decumulate all their assets (no bequests). I We also consider extensions with first-period income and bequest motive. 15 / 65

Credit constraints I Young agents can only borrow up to a fraction i of the present value of their future labor income ay,t+1 i i w t+1 i Rt+1 i. (lower! tighter credit conditions) I Constraint binding in all i and all t requires i < 2 (Rt+1 i )1 (Rt+2 i )1 1+ (Rt+2 i )1 [1 + (Rt+1 i, for all t. )1 ] 16 / 65

Household asset holdings I Binding credit constraints on the young imply: a i y,t+1 = i w i t+1 R i t+1 (< 0). I FOC for the middle-aged gives: a i m,t+1 = 1 1+ (R i t+1 )1 (1 i )w i t. I Aggregate asset position of generation 2 {y, m} in period t A i,t+1 L i,ta i,t+1. 17 / 65

Autarky equilibrium I Capital market equilibrium: Kt+1 i = A i y,t+1 + A i m,t+1.,! di erence equation driving the dynamics of kt. i I Example for =1and = 1: k i t+1 = 1 (1 )(1 i ) 1+gt+1 i 1+ + i (1 ) k i t. 18 / 65

Autarky steady state Special case when = 1 and = 1 I Suppose e ective labor Z i L i m grows at constant rate g i. The steady state level of k i is " k i 1 = 1+g i 1+ (1 ) 1 i + i (1 ) # 1 1, dk i d i < 0. I The autarkic rate of return in the steady-state is dr i d i R i =(1+g i ) 1+ + i (1 ) (1 )(1 i ). > 0, i.e., tighter constraints imply lower interest rate 19 / 65

Open-economy equilibrium I Equilibrium condition under financial integration: X Kt+1 i = X A i y,t+1 + A i m,t+1. i i I Financial integration in period t implies R i t+1 = R t+1, for all i. and k i t+1 = k t+1, for all i. 20 / 65

Integrated steady state Special case when = 1 and = 1 I Steady state: g i = g, and i Z i t Li m,t I World steady state interest rate: P Z j t Lj m,t j. R =(1+g) 1+ + (1 ) (1 ) 1, X i i i. 21 / 65

Aggregate saving rates in steady state S i Y i = g(1 ) i R + g 1+g (1 ) 1 i 1+ R 1 + k 1 for (autarkic or integrated) steady-state values of k and R. I Interaction between g and credit constraints is key. I In the absence of growth (g = 0), net saving rates are all zero. I Under integration, saving rates di er across countries in the long run: saving rate higher in more constrained countries. I Suppose we start from an integrated steady state and after an episode of high growth in the more constrained countries, the world reaches a new steady state. Lower! fall in R. I Saving rates across countries respond di erently: @ 2 (S/Y ) @ @R > 0! fall in R leads to more dispersion in saving rates. 22 / 65

Investment I Aggregate investment in country i I Investment rate: I i t Y i t I i t K i t+1 (1 )K i t = (1 + g i t+1 )ki t+1 (1 )k i t (k i t). I For = 1, I i t /Y i t I j t /Y j t = 1+g i t+1 1+g j t+1 under integration. Investment rates converge in the long run. 23 / 65

Two-country experiments Advanced economies vs. Emerging Asia Calibration: I Each period lasts 20 years. I Technology: = 0.28, = 9% on an annual basis. I Preference parameters: = 0.97 on an annual basis, = 0.5. I Constraints: H =0.25 (developed) and F =0.03 (Asia). 24 / 65

Growth experiment I We start from an integrated steady state where Asia accounts for 18% of world output: (ZL) F /(ZL) H =0.21. I Developed countries grow at g H =2.5% throughout, whereas g F = 6% for two periods (between t =2andt = 4). I In the final steady state, Asia accounts for 45% of world output, and both countries grow at g =2.5%. 25 / 65

Growth experiment 0.9 Size of Asia relative to Developed economies 0.028 k=k/zlb 0.095 World rate of return (contemporaneous) 0.8 0.026 0.09 0.7 0.024 0.6 0.022 0.085 0.5 0.02 0.08 0.4 0.018 0.075 0.3 0.016 0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.014 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.18 0.16 Aggregate saving rate Developed Asia 0.15 0.14 0.13 Investment rate Developed Asia 0.06 0.04 CA GDP ratios Developed Asia 0.14 0.12 0.02 0.12 0.1 0.11 0.1 0 0.08 0.09 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.04 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.06 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.06 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26 / 65

Integration & growth experiment Timing and calibration I Financial opening occurs in period 0 (= 1990). I In initial period 1 (= 1970), advanced economies are at their own autarkic steady state, whereas Asia is capital-scarce. I Assume g H =2.5% throughout, and Asia grows faster than advanced economies between periods 1 and 1. I We choose initial values of (ZL) F /(ZL) H, k F /k H and growth path for Asia to match: I Asia s share of advanced economies GDP in 1970 and 2010 I relative capital-per-e ciency unit of labor measured by Hall and Jones for 1990. 27 / 65

Integration & growth experiment 1 Size of Asia relative to Developed economies 0.03 k 0.105 Rate of return (contemporaneous) 0.9 0.8 0.025 Developed Asia 0.1 0.095 Developed Asia 0.7 0.02 0.09 0.6 0.5 ALm gdp 0.015 0.085 0.4 0.3 0.01 0.08 0.075 0.2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.005 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 0.18 0.16 Aggregate saving rate Developed Asia 0.15 0.14 0.13 Investment rate Developed Asia 0.06 0.04 CA GDP ratios Developed Asia 0.14 0.12 0.02 0.11 0.12 0.1 0 0.1 0.09 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.06 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.06 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.06 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 28 / 65

Role of credit constraint heterogeneity: H = F =0.25 1 0.9 Size of Asia relative to Developed economies ZLb gdp 0.014 0.012 k=k/zlb 0.16 0.15 Rate of return (contemporaneous) Developed Asia 0.8 0.01 Developed Asia 0.14 0.7 0.008 0.13 0.6 0.5 0.006 0.12 0.4 0.004 0.11 0.3 0.002 0.1 0.2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.09 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 0.09 0.08 Aggregate saving rate Developed Asia 0.11 0.1 Investment rate Developed Asia 0.04 0.02 CA GDP ratios Developed Asia 0.07 0.09 0 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.03 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.04 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.08 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 29 / 65

Three-country experiment I Heterogeneity among developed countries: some large debtors (US, UK, New Zealand, Australia...) and some large creditors (Germany, Japan, Switzerland...). I We group developed countries in the following way: I I Group 1: US, UK, IRE, CAN, AUS, NZL Group 2: Rest of developed countries I Private savings fell mostly in the first group and stayed roughly constant in the second. I The first group has been growing at a slightly higher rate over the period 1990-2008 (1% more on average) 30 / 65

Saving rates across regions 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 Savings Rate US and other Anglo Saxons Savings Rate Emerging Asia Savings Rate ROW 31 / 65

Growth di erentials 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 2008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980 1978 1976 1974 1972 1970 AUS/NZL/US/CAN/UK/IRE Emerging Asia ROW 32 / 65

Heterogeneity in household debt Household Debt as a % of GDP 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% US and other Anglo Saxons ROW Emerging Asia 33 / 65

Three-country experiment: Calibration and timing I H =0.25 (US), M =0.125 (Europe), L =0.03 (Asia) I In period 1, US and Europe (H & M) are integrated and at their steady state, whereas Asia (L) startsinautarkyandis capital-scarce. I Integration of Asia occurs at t = 0. I Calibration to GDP data: I Initially, YL /Y W =0.18 and Y H /Y W = Y M /Y W =0.41 I US grow at 2.5% throughout I Asia grows faster between t = 1andt =1 I Europe experiences slower growth between t = 0andt = 1. 34 / 65

Three-country experiment: Results 0.5 GDP as fraction of world GDP 0.035 k=k/zl 0.15 Rate(s) of return 0.45 H M L 0.03 0.14 0.13 0.4 0.025 0.12 0.35 0.3 0.02 H M L 0.11 0.1 H M L 0.25 0.015 0.09 0.08 0.2 0.01 0.07 1 0 1 2 3 4 0.005 1 0 1 2 3 4 0.06 1 0 1 2 3 4 0.18 0.16 Savings rates H M L 0.18 0.17 0.16 Investment rates H M L 0.06 0.04 CA GDP ratio 0.14 0.15 0.02 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.12 0 H M L 0.1 0.11 0.02 0.08 0.1 0.04 0.09 0.06 1 0 1 2 3 4 0.08 1 0 1 2 3 4 0.06 1 0 1 2 3 4 35 / 65

Evidence at cohort level I Our model has implications for the evolution of saving rates by age groups. I In the two-country integration & growth experiment: 1. the saving rate as function of age, in level and in change, has an inverted-u shape in both Developed Economies and Emerging Asia; 2. the fall in the saving rate of the young dominates in Developed Economies, whereas the rise in the saving rate of the middle-aged dominates in Emerging Asia. I We look at cohort-level data for the US and China to see if these predictions hold. 36 / 65

US Evidence I We use annual consumption and income data by age groups, over the period 1986-2008. I Source: Consumer Expenditure Survey (CEX) from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. I Key concern: CEX data su er from under-reporting biases. I I Aggregate CEX consumption and income data do not match with NIPA. See Slesnick (1992), Battistin (2003), Laitner and Silverman (2005), Heathcote, Perri and Violante (2010). I Whereas income reporting bias remained roughly constant, consumption under-reporting has gotten worse over time. 37 / 65

CEX vs NIPA Aggregate consumption and income 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 CEX/NIPA Personal Consumption expenditures CEX/NIPA Income after taxes 38 / 65

CEX vs NIPA Aggregate saving rate 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% -5.00% 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 CEX_Agg NIPA 39 / 65

US saving rate by age groups Unadjusted CEX 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% under 34 35-64 above 65-5.00% -10.00% -15.00% -20.00% 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 40 / 65

Correction method (1) I Let cg,t CEX and yg,t CEX denote average consumption and income in CEX, for age group g in year t. I Let Ct D and Yt D denote aggregate consumption and income in dataset D 2 {CEX, NIPA}. I Adjustment to consumption: I Adjustment to income: ĉ g,t = C t NIPA Ct CEX cg,t CEX ŷ g,t = Y t NIPA Yt CEX yg,t CEX I Potential problem if the degree of under-reporting varies across types of goods AND the composition of the consumption basket varies across age groups. 41 / 65

Correction method (2) Parker et al. (2009) I Use disaggregated consumption data for 15 sectors. I For each type of good i, define it = Cit NIPA /Cit CEX I Adjust CEX consumption data to match NIPA in each sector: ĉ git = it c CEX git, ĉ g,t = X i ĉ git I Problem with health: medical expenses covered by Medicare and Medicaid included in NIPA but not in CEX, health,t ' 5. ) Very large medical expenses are imputed to the old people as out-of-the-pocket health expenditures constitute a high share of their consumption basket in CEX (' 12%). 42 / 65

Correction method (3) I To address this problem and still match NIPA aggregate consumption, we use adjustment factor health,t = Pi6=health C NIPA it P i6=health C CEX it, and for other sectors j 6= health 2 j,t = C jt NIPA 6 Cjt CEX 41+ C NIPA P i6=health health,t C NIPA it C CEX health,t P i6=health C CEX it 3 7 5. I Compared to the previous method, the adjustment factor for health is reduced while other factors are slightly increased. 43 / 65

US Evidence Change in households savings in the US across age groups (1988-2008) 0.1 0.05 0-0.05-0.1-0.15-0.2-0.25 under 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 above 65 Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 44 / 65

Evidence for China I Data from CHIP (1995 and 2002) and UHS (1992-2009). I Existing evidence goes against standard life-cycle motives and our predictions. I Song et al. (2010), Chamon and Prasad (2010), and Chamon, Liu and Prasad (2010). I Argue that I the young have been saving more than the middle-aged in recent years; I the increase in Chinese saving rate is driven by the young and people above 50. 45 / 65

Evidence for China Measurement issues I Common practice: examine savings at the household level. I As if average saving rate of households with head of age x = average saving rate of individuals of age x. I Two issues: I I Selection bias: household heads might not be random; Aggregation bias: multi-generational households. 46 / 65

Evidence for China Selection bias Age distribution (1995) Frequency of observations 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% Household heads only Entire sample 0.0% 83 81 79 77 75 73 71 69 67 65 63 61 59 57 55 53 51 49 47 45 43 41 39 37 35 33 31 29 27 25 23 21 19 age 47 / 65

Evidence for China Selection bias Age distribution (2009) Frequency of observations 5.0% 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% Household heads only Entire sample 0.0% 85 83 81 79 77 75 73 71 69 67 65 63 61 59 57 55 53 51 49 47 45 43 41 39 37 35 33 31 29 27 25 23 21 19 age 48 / 65

Evidence for China Age of individual vs. age of household head (1995) 89 79 69 age of of head 59 49 39 29 19 19 29 39 49 59 69 79 89 age of individual 49 / 65

Evidence for China Age of individual vs. age of household head (2009) 89 79 69 age of of head 59 49 39 29 19 19 29 39 49 59 69 79 89 age of individual 50 / 65

Evidence for China Selection bias: Income premium by age of household head Income premium of households heads in China (in log) 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% <25 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 >80 2009 1992 age 51 / 65

Evidence for China Multi-generational households 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 number of adults 18-34y 35-44y 45-54y 55-64y >65y household composition of an individual aged 20 household composition of an individual aged 50 household composition of an individual aged 80 52 / 65

Evidence for China revisited Correcting for biases I Selection bias overstates level and growth of savings of the young. I Aggregation bias understates level and growth of savings of the middle-aged. I Correcting for these biases brings the data more in line with our theoretical framework. I Di erences in the evolution of saving rates between US and China broadly supportive of our predictions. 53 / 65

Evidence for China revisited Bias correction methodologies I Main issue: we have individual income but only observe expenditures at household level. I Crude/naive approach: compute individual expenditures as total household expenditures divided by the number of adults (i.e., income earners above 18). I Two alternative approaches to correct for biases. I Method 1: keep only non-multigenerational households. I Method 2: disaggregation method, following Chesher (1997). 54 / 65

Evidence for China revisited Correction method 1 I Method 1: keep only non-multigenerational households to control for aggregation bias. I To control for selection bias, we reweigh observations according to observables to match aggregate data. I We match the income and gender distribution by age. I Caveat: lack of observations for very young/old, and other selection issues. 55 / 65

Evidence for China revisited Correction method 2 I Method 2: projection method, Chesher (1997) I The model to be estimated is C hh i = X99 a=18 {N i,a Ci,a ind } + i. Roughness-penalized estimation to insure smoothness. I Caveat: non-interdependence assumption. I Improvement by adding controls for household characteristics (household income, nb adults, nb children, etc.): C hh i =exp(.z i ) X99 a=18 {N i,a C ind i,a }! + i. 56 / 65

Evidence for China Saving rates by age (2008) Savings rate per age in China in 2008 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40% 77 75 73 71 69 67 65 63 61 59 57 55 53 51 49 47 45 43 41 39 37 35 33 31 29 27 25 23 21 Individual saving (naive) Saving rate per age of household head 57 / 65

Evidence for China Change in individual saving rates by age (1992-2009) Change in savings rate across age groups in China (1992-2009) 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 >65 naïve unigen/income & gender chesher 58 / 65

Evolution of saving rates by age: US vs. China 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% -5.00% -10.00% -15.00% -20.00% -25.00% <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 >65 US change in savings rate 1988-2008 China change in savings rate (1992-2009) 59 / 65

Quantitative exercise Extended setup I Preferences: U i t = u(c i y,t)+ u(c i m,t+1)+ 2 u(c i o,t+2)+ 2 u(b i t+2). I Budget constraints: c i y,t + a i y,t+1 = w i y,t, cm,t+1 i + am,t+2 i = wm,t+1 i + Rt+1a i y,t+1+ i bi t+1 1+gL,t i, c i o,t+2+b i t+2 = R i t+2a i m,t+2. 60 / 65

Quantitative exercise Calibration I Relative productivity shocks young vs. middle-aged to match life income profile in China and the US. I Demographic shocks to match population structure in China and the US. I H and bequest motive intensity chosen to match levels of saving rates by age group in the US in 1990. I F / H pinned down by ratio of household debt across US and China. I Productivity shocks and initial capital-labor ratios calibrated as before. 61 / 65

Results (1) Size of China relative to the US Rate of return (contemporaneous) Investment rate 1 0.13 0.16 0.9 0.12 US 0.14 US China 0.8 0.11 China 0.7 0.12 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.09 0.5 0.4 A(e*Ly+Lm) gdp 0.08 0.08 0.3 0.07 0.06 0.2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.06 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 0.04 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Aggregate saving rate Saving rates by age groups in the US Saving rates by age groups in China 0.16 0.3 0.3 US 0.15 0.14 China 0.2 Y M O 0.25 0.13 0.1 0.2 Y M 0.12 0 0.15 O 0.11 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.09 0.2 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.3 0 0.06 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.4 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.05 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 62 / 65

Results (2) Change in saving rates by age in the US Change in savings rate across age groups US (1988-2008): Data versus Model 5% 0% -5% -10% -15% -20% young middle-aged old US data US model (2) US model (3) 63 / 65

Results (3) Change in saving rates by age in China Change in savings rate across age groups China (1992-2009): Data versus Model 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% young middle-aged old China data China Model (2) China Model (3) 64 / 65

Conclusion I Capital market integration of emerging countries and fast growth in these countries are two major shocks on global capital markets. I We show how, unlike in a standard model, this can lead to: (1) a divergence in savings rate across countries, (2) current account deficits in developed countries and surpluses in Emerging Asia, (3) a fall in world interest rates. I The key mechanism relies on di erences in borrowing constraints across countries. I Three-country experiment consistent with heterogeneity within developed countries. I Broadly in line with micro evidence for China and US. 65 / 65

APPENDIX 66 / 65

Current account imbalances The US experience (1) 2.0 y axis: US current account % of GDP (1970 2009) x axis: US Household savings rate % of disposable income (1970 2009) 1.0 0.0 1.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 2.0 3.0 4.0 y = 0.8287x 6.0262 R² = 0.7297 5.0 6.0 7.0 67 / 65

Current account imbalances The US experience (2)! "! 68 / 65

Current account imbalances The Chinese experience (1) 12 y axis: Chinese current account % of GDP (1982 2007) x axis: Chinese Household savings rate % of disposable income (1982 2007) 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2 4 y = 0.4317x 5.6145 R 2 = 0.5611 6 69 / 65

Current account imbalances The Chinese experience (2) 12 y-axis: China's Current Account (% of GDP) 1982-2007 x-axis: China's Investment (% of GDP) 1982-2007 10 8 6 4 2 0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0-2 -4-6 70 / 65

Current account imbalances Cross-country evidence on savings as key driver of current account over recent period y-axis: Current Account as % of GDP averaged over 1998-2007 x-axis: Savings as % of GDP averaged over 1998-2007 40 30 20 10 0 y = 0.8643x - 20.082 R 2 = 0.7156-10 -20-30 -40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 71 / 65

Savings I Aggregate savings: S i t Y i t +(R t 1)NFA i t C i t. I Note: Y i t = W i t + r K,t K i t and NFA i t = A i y,t + A i m,t K i t. I We can write S i t = S i y,t + S i m,t + S i o,t where S i y,t = C i y,t, S i m,t = W i t +(R t 1)A i y,t C i m,t, S i o,t = r K,t K i t +(R t 1)(A i m,t K i t ) C i o,t. 72 / 65

Current account I Definition CA i t NFA i t+1 NFA i t I Equivalently: CA i t = S i t I i t. 73 / 65

Evidence for China Changes in saving rates by age, 1995-2008 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% -10.00% -20.00% 73 71 69 67 65 63 61 59 57 55 53 51 49 47 45 43 41 39 37 35 33 31 29 27 25 23 21 Change in household savings rate (per age of household) over 1995-2008 Change in individual savings rate over 1995-2008 74 / 65