1: \documentclass[pre,preprint,aps,floatfix,showpacs,showkeys]{revtex4}

2: %\documentclass[prl,aps,floatfix,showpacs,a4]{revtex4}

3: 

4: \usepackage{graphicx}

5: 

6: \begin{document}

7: 

8: \title{Cross-country hierarchical structure and currency 

9: crisis}

10: \thanks{In press in Internationaal Journal of Modern Physics C}

11: 

12: 

13: \author{Guillermo J. Ortega}

14: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Universidad de Buenos Aires and CONICET

15: Ciudad Universitaria, Pabell\'on I, 1428, Buenos Aires, Argentine\\

16: ortega@df.uba.ar}

17: 

18: \author{David Matesanz}

19: \affiliation{Department of Applied Economics, Universidad de Oviedo

20: Avda. Cristo s/n, 33006, Oviedo, Spain\\

21: matesanzdavid@uniovi.es}

22: 

23: \begin{abstract}

24: Using data from a sample of 28 representatives countries, we 

25: propose a classification of currency crises consequences based 

26: on the ultrametric analysis of the real exchange rate movements 

27: time series, without any further assumption. By using the matrix 

28: of synchronous linear correlation coefficients and the appropriate 

29: metric distance between pairs of countries, we were able to construct 

30: a hierarchical tree of countries. This economic taxonomy provides 

31: relevant information regarding liaisons between countries and a 

32: meaningful insight about the contagion phenomenon.

33: 

34: \end{abstract}

35: 

36: \pacs{PACS Nos.: 02.50.Sk, 89.90.+n}

37: \keywords{Econophysics; MST; real exchange rate}

38: %\thanks{In press in Internationaall Journal of Physics C}

39: 

40: \maketitle

41: 

42: \section{Introduction}

43: 

44: 

45: Prediction and contagion of financial crises have 

46: received much attention in recent years. The financial 

47: instability during the nineties has caused intense exchange 

48: and banking crises, in developed and, especially, in developing 

49: countries. Most of the empirical literature has focused their interest 

50: in identification, prediction and contagion of currency crises, and 

51: the macroeconomic variable which seems to better account for both 

52: effects is the real exchange rate (RER) \cite{KL98,Ab03,Pe05,PA03}. 

53: However, conclusive results 

54: from the empirical literature are hard to achieve. 

55: One of the reason for unconvincing answers in this debate is

56: the enormous differences in periods and 

57: countries used in the empirical works, without taking account for regional 

58: or country specific differences in the underlying dynamics of the 

59: variables time series used \cite{Zh01} \cite{PA03}. 

60: 

61: From a methodological point of view, techniques and tools 

62: formerly used in the physical and biological fields, have become 

63: to be applied in the analysis of economic data \cite{MS00,BP00}, 

64: in particular, 

65: to the case of stock portfolios. In this case, correlation based 

66: clustering of synchronous financial data has been performed to obtain a 

67: taxonomy of a set stocks from the US equity market. The last objective 

68: in this kind of works is to improve economic forecasting and modeling the 

69: complex dynamic underlying the raw data and their basic hypothesis is that 

70: financial time series are carrying valuable economic information 

71: that can be detected.

72: 

73: Following the above ideas, we shall extract information present in the 

74: correlation matrix of the RER in a sample of 28 representative countries, 

75: in the period of 1990-2002. By using the subdominant ultrametric 

76: associate with a metric distance in the correlation space, we first 

77: construct the Minimum Spanning Tree (MST) which provides a topological 

78: picture of the countries links. Then, we shall proceed to construct a 

79: hierarchical tree associated with the distance matrix in order to 

80: obtain a country taxonomic description provided by the real exchange data. 

81: So, the main aim of this work is to detect hierarchical structure of our 

82: country sample that arises from the relations links in their exchange 

83: rate dynamics. Clustering countries in such a way could be of importance 

84: in several economic aspects related to the empirical currency crises and 

85: contagion literature. Probably the most important is the identification 

86: of homogenous countries in their exchange rate dynamics in order to 

87: construct better regional Early Warning Systems (EWS), more accurate 

88: forms of dating the events 

89: of crises especially design for homogeneous regions (or isolated countries) 

90: and, finally, for understanding the possibilities of forecasting of contagion. 

91: 

92: \section{Methodology}

93: 

94: \subsection{Data}

95: Returns from $RER$ in each of the 28 time series has been 

96: calculated in the usual way, 

97: \begin{equation}

98: rRER_i(k) = \frac{RER_i(k+1) - RER_i(k)} {RER_i(k)}

99: \label{eq1}

100: \end{equation}

101: where $RER_i(k)$ is the monthly real exchange rate from 

102: country $i$, at month $k$, and $rRER_i(k)$ the corresponding

103: return.

104: The period 1990-2002 has been used, yielding a total of 156 data

105: points for each country. Figure (\ref{f1}) shows the actual time series

106: used for further calculations. $RER$ is computed as the ratio of foreign

107: price proxied by U.S. consumer price to domestic consumer price, and the

108: result is multiplied by the nominal exchange rate of the domestic currency with

109: U.S. dollar. Data has been drawn

110: from International Financial Statistics in the IMF database available

111: on-line $(http://ifs.apdi.net/imf/logon.aspx)$.

112: 

113: \begin{figure}

114: \includegraphics[width=10cm,angle=270]{Fig1.ps}

115: \caption{

116: Returns of real exchange rate time series in the 28 countries.

117: Countries are ordered alphabetically from bottom to top. Monthly data from

118: January 1990 to December 2002 has been used. Countries

119: are labeled accordingly with the symbols listed in the Appendix.

120: \label{f1}}

121: \end{figure}

122: 

123: \subsection{Numerical Methods}

124: In order to quantify the degree of similarity between pairs

125: of $RER$ time series belonging to different countries, we have calculated

126: the Pearson correlation coefficient \cite{PT92}

127: \begin{equation}

128: \rho_{i,j} = \frac{\sum_{k=1}^{N} (rRER_{i}(k)-<{rRER_i}>)

129: (rRER_{j}(k)-<{rRER_j}>)}

130: {{\sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^{N} {(rRER_{i}(k)-<{rRER_i}>)}^2}}

131: {\sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^{N} {(rRER_{j}(k)-<{rRER_j}>)}^2}}}

132: \label{eq2}

133: \end{equation}

134: where $<rRER_i>$ is the mean value of $rRER_i$ in the period

135: considered. Because $\rho_{i,j}$ is a measure of similarity,

136: and a measure of ''distance" is actually needed in order to 

137: construct the ultrametirc space \cite{RT86}, following

138: Gower \cite{Go66}, we define the distance between the

139: time evolution of $rRER_i$ and $rRER_j$ as,

140: \begin{equation}

141: d(i,j) = \sqrt{ \rho_{i,i} + \rho_{j,j} - 2 \rho_{i,j}} =

142: \sqrt{2 ( 1 -  \rho_{i,j})}

143: \label{eq3}

144: \end{equation}

145: The last equality came from the symetry property of the

146: correlation matrix, $\rho_{i,j} = \rho_{j,i}$ and the 

147: normalization $\rho_{i,i} = 1$  $\forall i$. In

148: this way, $d_{i,j}$ 

149: fulfils the three axioms of a distance: 

150: \begin{itemize}

151:  \item $d(i,j) = 0$ if and only if $i=j$

152:  \item $d(i,j) = d(j,i)$

153:  \item $d(i,j) \leq d(i,l) + d(l,j)$

154: \end{itemize}

155: The third axiom, the triangular inequality, characterize a metric

156: space. An {\it ultrametric space}, on the other hand, is endowed with

157: a distance that obeys a stronger inequality, the

158: {\it ultrametric distance} $d(i,j)^{<}$:\\

159: \begin{equation}

160: d(i,j)^{<} \leq max\{ d(i,l),d(l,j) \}

161: \label{eq4}

162: \end{equation}

163: Thus, it follows that the distance matrix given by Equation (\ref{eq3})

164: satisfies ultrametricity and a hierarchical tree can be uniquely

165: constructed \cite{RT86}. 

166: 

167: One method to obtain $d(i,j)^{<}$ directly from the distance

168: matrix $d(i,j)$ is through the MST method \cite{RT86}.

169: Given the metric space $(\Omega, d)$, that is, countries 

170: and the distance defined by Equation (\ref{eq3}), there is

171: associated with this space a nondirected graph with the same 

172: elements of $\Omega$

173: as vertices, and links between the elements $(i,j)$, the

174: distances $d(i,j)$. The MST is a tree with the same vertices 

175: as in $\Omega$ but of minimal total lenght. Although more than

176: one MST can be constructed on $\Omega$, $d^{<}$ is unique.

177: With the information provided by the MST, the distance 

178: $d(i,j)^{<}$ between two elements $i$ and $j$

179: in $\Omega$ is given by

180: \begin{equation}

181: d(i,j)^{<} = max\{d(w_i,w_{i+1}), 1 \leq i \leq n-1\}

182: \label{eq5}

183: \end{equation}

184: where $C_{i,j} = \{(w_1,w_2),(w_2,w_3),...,(w_{n-1},w_{n})\}$

185: denotes the unique path in the MST between $i$ and $j$ 

186: ($w_1 = i, w_n = j$). We shall show in the next section how

187: to construct $d(i,j)^{<}$ in our particular case.

188: 

189: In what follows, we shall follow closely the analysis and methodology

190: done in the work of R. Mantegna \cite{Ma99} in the case of stocks.

191: A comprehensive review of ultrametricity, hierarchical trees and

192: clustering methods can be found in reference \cite{RT86}

193: 

194: \section{Results}

195: We first construct the MST directly from the

196: distance matrix $d(i,j)$.

197: One begins by connecting

198: the closest countries given by $d(i,j)$, in this case POR-SPA with

199: a distance equal to 0.41. Table \ref{tab1} shows some representative

200: distances. One then proceeds by linking the remaining

201: countries accordingly with their closeness to the previously

202: connected countries. For instance, in the distance matrix, the shortest distance

203: following POR-SPA is DEN-SWI with a distance of 0.411, and in this

204: way, we have another link between both countries. The next one is

205: DEN-GRE with a distance of 0.464. We then proceed to connect GRE to

206: the former pair DEN-SWI, giving GRE-DEN-SWI. At this moment, we

207: have two "clusters", POR-SPA and GRE-DEN-SWI. Proceeding in the

208: above explained way, we finally construct a tree with the 28 countries

209: and 27 links among them. Figure (\ref{f2}) shows the complete

210: MST given by the distance matrix $d(i,j)$.

211: 

212: %\begin{table}[ht]

213: \begin{table}[t]

214: \caption{Some representatives distances 

215: between pairs of countries, {\it i.e.} $d(i,j)$}

216: {\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|} \hline

217: Distance & country & country \\

218: \hline

219: 0.410 &  POR\* &  SPA\* \\ \hline

220: 0.411 &  DEN\* &  SWI\* \\ \hline

221: 0.464 &  DEN   &  GRE\* \\ \hline

222: 0.465 &  DEN   &  NOR\* \\ \hline

223: 0.490 &  DEN   &  POR  \\ \hline

224:  ...  &  ...   &  ...  \\ \hline

225: 0.666 &  MAL\* &  THA\* \\ \hline

226: 0.669 &  ITA   &  NOR  \\ \hline

227: 0.669 &  FIN   &  SWI  \\ \hline

228:  ...  &  ...   &  ...  \\ \hline

229: 0.797 &  SIN\* &  THA  \\ \hline

230: 0.834 & INDO\* &  THA  \\ \hline

231: 0.847 &  MAL   &  SIN  \\ \hline

232: 0.905 &  PHI\* &  THA  \\ \hline

233: 0.926 &  INDO  &  SIN  \\ \hline

234: 0.937 &  INDO  &  MAL  \\ \hline

235: 0.952 &  SWE   &  U\_K\* \\ \hline

236: 0.972 &  ITA   &  U\_K  \\ \hline

237:  ...  &  ...   &  ...  \\ \hline

238: 1.020 &  AUS\* &  IRE  \\ \hline

239:  ...  &  ...   &  ...  \\ \hline

240: 1.137 &  ARG\* &  BRA\* \\ \hline

241: 1.156 &  PHI   &  SIN  \\ \hline

242: 1.171 &  BRA   &  CHI\* \\ \hline

243: 1.184 &  KOR\* &  PHI  \\ \hline

244:  ...  &  ...   &  ...  \\ \hline

245: 1.241 &  BRA   &  COL\* \\ \hline

246:  ...  &  ...   &  ...  \\ \hline

247: 1.272 &  CHI   &  TUR\* \\ \hline

248:  ...  &  ...   &  ...  \\ \hline

249: 1.281 &  AUS\* &  MEX\* \\ \hline

250:  ...  &  ...   &  ...  \\ \hline

251: 1.329 & INDI\* &  KOR  \\ \hline

252:  ...  &  ...   &  ...  \\ \hline

253: 1.330 &  SPA   &  TUR  \\ \hline

254: \end{tabular}

255: \label{tab1}}

256: \end{table}

257: 

258: \begin{figure}

259: \includegraphics[width=10cm,angle=270]{Fig2.ps}

260: \caption{

261: Minimal Spanning Tree connecting the 28 countries. Countries

262: are labeled accordingly with the symbols listed in the Appendix.

263: \label{f2}}

264: \end{figure}

265: 

266: Armed with the information provided by the distance matrix $d(i,j)$

267: and the MST,

268: we proceed to construct the subdominant ultrametric, accordingly

269: with Equation (\ref{eq5}).

270: Firstly, we define the subdominant 

271: ultrametric distance matrix ${\bf D}^{<}$. This ultrametric 

272: matrix is obtained by defining the subdominant ultrametric 

273: distance $d(i,j)^{<}$ between countries $i$ and $j$, as the

274: maximum value of the distance $d(k,l)$ detected by moving,

275: in single steps, from country $i$ to country $j$ through 

276: the shortest path connecting $i$ and $j$ in the MST (Equation

277: \ref{eq5}). For instance, the ultrametric distance 

278: $d(SPA,POR)^{<}$ = 0.410 because both countries are placed 

279: side by side in the MST, and in this way, the ultrametric 

280: distance coincide with the metric distance, however, $d(SWI,SPA)^{<}$ =

281: 0.490, which is the maximum metric distance between adjacent countries

282: in the path from SWI to SPA (see Figure 2 and Table 1). 

283: Proceeding in this way, we then order countries accordingly 

284: with their ultrametric distances to the others, placing the more

285: tightly connected countries in the center, and outward the

286: less connected. In order to obtain a clear picture of the

287: distances between countries, we have plotted in Figure (3)

288: the distance matrix given by Equation (\ref{eq3}), but 

289: countries ordered accordingly with their ultrametric distances. 

290: 

291: In the MST 

292: three groups of countries are clearly seen. It is interesting to 

293: note that these groups are built by geographical neighbor countries. 

294: EU countries group appears in first place with the smallest distances 

295: among them;

296: Asian countries followed and in third place Latin American 

297: countries have shown higher distances between their countries than 

298: the other two first groups. 

299: As expected, EU countries have shown the shortest distances in our 

300: sample (distances between 0.41 and 0.76) due to common 

301: relative real exchange movements\cite{AI00} inside 

302: the European Monetary System\footnote{In January 1, 1999, Spain, 

303: Portugal, Ireland, Finland, Italy and Norway, and other european 

304: countries not

305: in our sample, gave up their own currencies and adopted the Euro 

306: currency, with fixed nominal

307: exchange among them, and in January 2001 Greece joined the Euro 

308: too (United Kingdom, Denmark and Swedden refused to join the Euro). 

309: After Januay 1999, the Greek and Danish currencies joined to the 

310: new Exchange Rate Mechanism, where currencies are allowed to float 

311: within a range of $\pm 15 \%$ against the Euro. But as Greece joined 

312: the Euro in 2001, Denmark is the only participant in the mechanism 

313: in our country sample.},

314: although two different sub-groups of countries shows up; one in the north, with 

315: DEN as the most linked country and the other one in the south of 

316: Europe with short distances and intense links among SPA, POR and ITA. 

317: Finally, FIN is the least connected country in this group and U\_K and IRE 

318: seem not to belong to it.

319: Correlations coefficients 

320: in Figure (3) clearly support the closeness among EU 

321: countries exchange rate dynamics based, 

322: of course, in the common policy they have followed.

323: 

324: Asian countries form the next group order by distance. By far, 

325: THA and MAL are 

326: the most connected into the group (distances between 0,66 and 1) 

327: and are also quite connected 

328: with the EU countries and AUS and U\_K 

329: ($1,05 < d < 1,3$). On the other side, 

330: KOR and especially INDI form a relatively isolated pair and have 

331: shown little and less intense

332: connections with any of the groups.  

333: 

334: Our third group is the Latin American one. Distances show 

335: high values (above 1,1) and very 

336: diffuse connections so, in fact, it is not a homogeneous group. 

337: Interesting enough is the important 

338: role played by BRA in South America as a centre of connections 

339: in this region. In this sense, 

340: BRA is the first link for ARG, CHI and 

341: COL showing the central role of their exchange 

342: rate economic policy in the South American continent. 

343: (In Figure (\ref{f3}) the correlation coefficients 

344: show the same central role of BRA). On the other hand, 

345: ARG, PER, ECU and VEN have shown relative isolated 

346: exchange rate dynamics in the analyzed period, with no apparent relevant 

347: links in the region. The same occurs to MEX but in this case the reason 

348: probably was their intense trade and financial relations with the United States.

349: In Figure (\ref{f3}) we can see no apparent group formation in the region, 

350: except light correlations in BRA.

351: 

352: In this regional hierarchy there are countries with connections more 

353: "diffuse". For instance, the U\_K shows small distances with 

354: the EU group (0,95) in first term but also with Asian countries and 

355: IRE and AUS. In the same direction, CHI shows short distance with 

356: BRA (1,17)  in first time but immediately are AUS, COL, IRE, 

357: ECU and MAL. More isolated is INDI with very 

358: diffuse connections and 

359: high distances (1,33), to KOR, 

360: U\_K, CHI, ITA and SIN.  

361: 

362: 

363: \begin{figure}

364: \includegraphics[width=10cm,angle=270]{Fig3.ps}

365: \caption{

366: Gray scale distance plot. Distance measure is

367: calculated accordingly with Equation (\ref{eq3}). Countries

368: are ordered in the $x$ and $y$ axis accordingly with their

369: ultrametric distances (see texts), and they

370: are labeled accordingly with the symbols listed in the Appendix.

371: \label{f3}}

372: \end{figure}

373: 

374: \section{Conclusions}

375: We have introduced a new criterion to characterize the effects of 

376: currency crises  based solely on the correlations of real exchange 

377: rate returns time series. By using the information provided by

378: the correlations between synchronous movements in the real exchange

379: rates in different countries, we were able to construct a 

380: geometrical picture of the countries connections by means the MST.

381: Moreover, taxonomic information is also extracted from the time series,

382: by ordering countries

383: accordingly with its ultrametric distance (Figure \ref{f3}).

384: 

385: The hierarchical structure has shown three groups of 

386: countries which are clearly divided in a regional dimension. 

387: EU and Asian countries are relatively homogenous groups, meanwhile 

388: Latin American countries form a heterogeneous region where Brazil 

389: exchange rate dynamics is central. On the other side, we have shown a 

390: group of countries which do not belong to a specific group, 

391: such us Chile, India or United Kingdom.

392: From an economic point of view, information of our hierarchical tree 

393: could be useful in three relevant aspects.

394: First of all, we would expect that countries or group of countries with 

395: short distances among them were affected commonly by the same, 

396: or almost the same, economic and non economic factors, 

397: such as the EU group and in the central Asian group. When 

398: distances are larger among countries, exchange rate dynamics are 

399: affected by country specific factors.

400: 

401: In second place, information of our tree could be of interest for 

402: defining different methods of dating a currency crises depending of 

403: the range of countries to be used in the empirical analysis. 

404: So, this approach could improve results in dating a currency crises 

405: and also in defining the event of crises. In the same direction, 

406: this taxonomy can be used to define different regional or individual 

407: Early Warning Systems.

408: 

409: In third place, the taxonomy associated with the obtained hierarchical structure 

410: might be useful in the theoretical description of contagion and in the 

411: search of specific economic and no economic factors affecting different 

412: groups of countries. In addition, this hierarchy may be a useful tool

413: in the analysis of exchange rate crises contagion.

414: 

415: \section*{Acknowledgments}

416: We would like to thank, without implicating, International 

417: Economics Research Group in Oviedo University. 

418: G.O. thanks financial 

419: support from the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas 

420: y T\'ecnicas, Argentina. D. M. thanks financial support from the University of Oviedo.

421: 

422: \appendix

423: \section{Countries}

424: The 28 countries included in this work are as follows:

425: Argentine (ARG), Malaysia (MAL), Thailand (THA), Mexico (MEX), Korea (KOR), 

426: Indonesia (INDO), Brazil (BRA), Venezuela (VEN), Peru (PER), India (INDI), 

427: Ecuador (ECU), Turkey (TUR), Colombia (COL), Singapore (SIN), Philippines (PHI), 

428: United Kingdom (U\_K), Sweden (SWE), Italy (ITA), Ireland (IRE), Finland (FIN), 

429: Chile (CHI), Greece (GRE), Portugal (POR), Switzerland (SWI), Denmark (DEN), 

430: Spain (SPA), Norway (NOR), Australia (AUS)

431: 

432: 

433: %\section*{References}

434: \begin{thebibliography}{00}

435: 

436: \bibitem{KL98}

437: G. Kaminsky, S. Lizondo, and C. M. Reinhart,

438: {\it IMF Staff Papers}, {\bf 45}, 1-56 (1998).

439: 

440: \bibitem{Ab03}

441: A. Abiad, {\it IMF Working Paper},{\bf 32}, 1-60 (2003)

442: 

443: \bibitem{Pe05}

444: P\'erez, J. {\it Applied Financial Economics Letters}, 

445: {\bf 1 (1)}, 41-46 (2005)

446: 

447: \bibitem{PA03}

448: S. Pozo, C. Amuedo-Dorantes, {\it Journal of International 

449: Money and Finance}, {\bf 22}, 591-609 (2003).

450: 

451: \bibitem{Zh01}

452: Z. Zhang (2001) {\it IMF Working Paper}, International Monetary Fund

453: (November) (2001).

454: 

455: \bibitem{MS00}

456: R. N. Mantegna, H. E. Stanley, {\it An introduction to Econophysics:

457: Correlations and Complexity in Finance} (Cambridge University Press, UK,

458: 2000)

459: 

460: \bibitem{BP00}

461: J.-P. Bouchaud, M. Potters, {\it Theory of Financial Risk: 

462: from Statistical Physics to Risk Management} (Cambridge University Press,

463: Cambridge, UK, 2000).

464: 

465: \bibitem{Ma99}

466: R. N. Mantegna, {\it European Physical Journal B},{\bf 11}, 193-197 (1999).

467: 

468: \bibitem{Go66}

469: J. C. Gower, {\it Biometrika},{\bf 53}, 325 (1996).

470: 

471: \bibitem{PT92}

472: W.H. Press, S.A. Teukolsky, W.T. Vetterling

473: and B.P. Flannery, {\it Numerical Recipes}

474: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992), 2nd. ed.

475: 

476: \bibitem{RT86}

477: R. Ramal, G. Toulouse and M. A. Virasoro, {\it

478: Review of Modern Physics}, {\bf 58(3)}, 765-788 (1986).

479: 

480: \bibitem{AI00}

481: M. Ausloos, K. Ivanova, {\it Physica A}, {\bf 286}, 353-366 (2000).

482: 

483: \bibitem{KR03}

484: G. Kaminsky, M. Reinhart  and C. A. Vegh,

485: {\it Journal of Economic

486: Perspectives}, American Economic Association, {\bf 17(4)}, 

487: 51-74 (2003).

488: 

489: \end{thebibliography}

490: 

491: \end{document}

492: 

493: