Dollarization, it has come as a popular term for currency
substitution. This is a term mostly used when a foreign currency is used instead
of the domestic currency as legal tender.
In this instance, the foreign currency takes over all functions of domestic
money: unit of account, medium of exchange, and as a store of value. Zimbabwe dollarized
its economy on the premise of halting inflation, uncertainty, and at the same
time encouraging stability and growth. The idea is a noble one, however, for
successful dollarization there are two major conditions that ought to be met.
The first is the formulation of right policies to prepare for a successful
reintroduction of the domestic currency. Then, the second is the choice of
which foreign currency to take - which is going to be a focus for this article.
We raise points in support of the use of South African Rand over the currently
widely circulated US Dollar.
Allowing the foreign currency to freely circulate in the
domestic economy is a strong commitment to pegging the domestic currency to the
foreign currency at one-to-one exchange rate. To successfully peg domestic
currency to a foreign currency, requires that the two countries have a high degree
of economic integration, that is to say, the two economies should be closely
linked by trade in goods and services and by factor mobility. Factor mobility
entails the free flow of labor and capital between the two economies. Second,
the two countries should exhibit economically similar exogenous shocks, including
“symmetric” growth and recession. At the very least favorable end, they should
face more symmetric shocks and fewer asymmetric shocks. Since the idea of
dollarization entails that two countries are subject to a uniform monetary
policy, then a common monetary policy is appropriate when the booms and bursts
are similar. If a country chooses to peg its currency to that of a country that
doesn’t share similar economic shocks with her, that means that the two
countries would not share similar business cycles and hence a common monetary
policy would be destabilizing.
To allow the easiness of the flow of goods, services and
factor mobility, the two countries ought to be geographically close. In
addition, to reduce transaction costs, increase cooperation and reduction in
uncertainty, the bulk of a country’s trade should be undertaken with the
trading partner(s) to whose currency it plans to peg. Otherwise, there will be
an increase in uncertainty, calculation and transaction costs that arise when
exchange rates float are a more serious issue for the country’s balance of
payment and hence economic growth.
Tying a country’s currency to a foreign currency is similar
to a firm acceptance of a fixed exchange rate system. Having a fixed exchange
rate means that a country is susceptible to the importation of foreign macro-economic
shocks into the domestic economy. This may lead to financial crises that have an
adverse impact on the balance of payment, price stability, output and
employment. Zimbabwe is using the US dollar as its main currency, which implies
that the domestic interest rates are always tied to the foreign interest rates.
Thus, an increase in interest rates in the US will have an adverse effect on
the competitiveness of the domestic exports and employment. In particular, a fiscal
expansion in the US coupled with the trade protectionism implies that there is
a significant compromisation of the independence of the monetary economy. Assuming
the host country is adopting a transparency, accountable and sound monetary
policy system, the only major advantage of a fixed exchange rate is that it
acts as nominal anchor that helps to keep domestic inflation low.
Given the points raised above, mainly focusing on the need
for cooperation on currency adoption between the two nations, high factor
mobility i.e. Labor and capital mobility in response to a shock in one of the
two countries. There is compelling support to ditch the American dollar in
favor of the South African rand.
Makes a lot of sense considering the issues you have raised in your article younger
ReplyDeleteI second that...
ReplyDeleteGreat piece of work and insights guys.
ReplyDeleteIf the economy was policy driven there is a lot of currency insights to be considered.
ReplyDeleteNice analysis. I understand that Zim and SA economy are linked and it would make more sense to adopt the rand. But given the uncertainties in the SA economy at the moment (land reform looming) should we not consider this risk as well? Imagine if Zambia had pegged their currency to the Zim dollar in 1999/2000. I also liked the point of having a road map for a successful reintroduction of local currency, currently there doesn't seem to be a plan at all.
ReplyDeleteThank you very much Patie for your comment. I think you raise a very important and valid point in terms of the uncertainty around the rand. I think it would be good if the government could somewhat have a concrete plan put in place to re-introduce the local currency to solve this issue once and for all. My initial thought was that the multicurrency approach we adopted around 2009 was supposed to be a short-term plan while we figured out what to do next but, here we are almost 10 years later we still have no cash in the banks. But yeah, uncertainty should be factored into and also knowing that whatever we do now should be temporary while we put our house in order in the interim.
DeleteI totally concur with you with repect to uncertainty. However, examining the current cost of using the US$ versus the SA Rand, Rand would be way more efficient. I totally agree volatility is not good for the stability of an economy. Given SA's current trajectory, the Rand is going to lose value at an increasing rate. However, there are two importants points to make:
Delete1) Adopting the Rand is a short term measure to allow for the re-introduction of the local currency.
2) Even, if the Rand gets out of hand, how long did it take to move from Zim $ to the US$? It doesnt take time. Notwithstanding that it comes with some cost. I like your perspective analysis though.
Great article mkoma, the real minds we need to revive our economy indeed!!!The South African Rand would have been and still could be a better option, but adoption of the South African Rand would entail joining the Rand Monetary union which has its own rules and demands - Zimbabwe might need to have its own currency - will it mean officially we adopt the bond as currency? secondly, there is need to consider the stability aspects - is the Rand still as stable since the talk on Land reform Commenced, will Zim not be exposing itself to another risk with declining confidence in the rand and also the negative impacts of Land Reform on the Rand? What levels and rates of exposure will the country take itself to by adopting the rand? on the other hand, how do you see adopting the Zambian Kwacha, given the geographical proximity and the similarities Zim has with Zambia and also the socio-economic-cultural-politico similarities the 2 countries exhibit compared to South Africa? The nitty differences and challenges of adopting just one specific currency are being dealt with by the de-facto multi-currency set-up but there is need to relook at the currency basket that Zimbabwe adopts or continues to adopt, the current one either is insufficient or is deficient. There is real need for deeper analysis of the pros and cons of each and all the currencies - mind the USD is pushing the Cost of Doing Business very high as well!!! There is a real need to bring the brains together and relook the Zimbabwean Growth model to determine the direction of flow of the Zim Economy going forward - considering Chiminya and Chiminya 2009; zimbabwe Economics Society 2010 and the likes.....Great Piece Doc, lets delve deeper into this!!!
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for your valuable comments and kind words. You raise very important issues here and I certainly agree on the volatility around the rand which we should also take note of. I would be cautious about the Zambian Kwacha for now and would give my views in another article. I think the idea of the multi-currency was good from the start, but here is where I have a problem with our policymakers, its now almost 10 years and no plan to address this. So, the issue at the end of the day would not necessarily be around whether to have SA rand or USD or Kwacha, but on the competence and political will of our policymakers to solve this issue for once. If political will is there, volatility issues will not be a big issue given that nearly any currency including the USD is subject to being volatile. So key phrase "Political will".
DeleteGood analysis.
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis. Everyone knows the rand is our best option for now. SA is our biggest trading partner. SA might be having more Zim workers than Zim itself. The bulk of the goods in Zim shops are from SA. There is no political will to address the cash crisis in Zim because bond notes are benefiting the government that is paying workers with papers and also raising money to buy cars.
ReplyDeleteThank you Doc for the comments, I could not agree with you more on this. There is no political will on the part of our policymakers. Honestly, how can one explain the almost 10 year gap of doing absolutely nothing around this currency issue since the introduction of the multi-currency? Whatever RBZ is doing at the moment, it's clearly not working. I think its either that a change in behaviour by the bank or a change in personnel is required to make good progress on the economy.
Delete